News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?. Parent comment

Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust? by teleforce on Friday January 15, 2021 @08:03PM (#25798817)
What it is probably not obvious to most people is that D has supports for D as better C, so it can have seamless interaction with C library and vice versa [1]. With betterC, D supports for C interfacing and integration is second to none. Heck, you can even compile the D compiler as a library if you fancy a built-in compiler for your C and D program. This seamless integration capability can be very productive where most of the high performance libraries are written in C.

[1]https://dlang.org/blog/2017/08/23/d-as-a-better-c/

[2]https://dlang.org/blog/2017/08/01/a-dub-case-study-compiling...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust? by dralley on Friday January 15, 2021 @08:56PM (#25799160)
Zig has similar good integration with C. The Zig compiler is also a C compiler (calls into Clang), C headers can be imported directly from Zig code and used without writing any bindings, and you can also autogenerate C headers for Zig code so that it can be used directly from C (although this is currently broken).
[ Parent | on HN ]