Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?
by iFreilicht on Saturday January 16, 2021 @06:16PM
(#25806460)
Great in theory but so convoluted and theoretical that it will always be niche?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?
by pharmakom on Sunday January 17, 2021 @07:29AM
(#25810182)
I mean mostly in the sense that it takes mathematically modelling programming and the machine being programmed very seriously and it allows you to build tall towers of abstraction on top. Compare this to C++ for example where many of the mechanisms for building abstractions are accidental or C where abstractions are not really possible.
Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?
by iFreilicht on Sunday January 17, 2021 @11:27AM
(#25812040)
Ah right, that makes sense, I read your comment in more of a snarky manner before.
Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?
by pjmlp on Sunday January 17, 2021 @07:14AM
(#25810114)
Actually I think that in the long term most languages with automatic memory management will just adopt some form of affine types for high performance code sections, and that will be it.
We will keep the productivity of the existing eco-systems and tooling, with an additional tool for the 1% of use cases that it actually matters.
Re:Why Zig when there is already C++, D, and Rust?
by iFreilicht on Sunday January 17, 2021 @11:26AM
(#25812028)
If even that. I think in a lot of cases, it doesn't really matter, and most already allow linking to a library, which works well enough for Python at least, and should be fine for most application development purposes.
Languages like Rust and Zig are just on a different level, for cases where performance or hardware restrictions are the number one concern.