News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust: A Critical Retrospective by UmbertoNoEco on Thursday May 19, 2022 @04:24PM (#31439711)
As I pointed here originally, you need to be very careful about what you ADD to a language, because once the cat is out of the bag there is no going back, people are going to use that stuff. That's why I dont begrudge the attitude of the golang maintainers to be very slow in introducing stuff, because it is basically an irreversible step.

I suppose every thing in Rust has a raison d'etre but you pay with complexity that versatility. I think there is space now for a modern, memory-safe, SIMPLE, systems programming language. C has the backwards compatibility problem (although I am still bullish on its future) and a language like Zig never got any traction. Hopefully the future will bring new, interesting stuff.

Re:Rust: A Critical Retrospective by int_19h on Thursday May 19, 2022 @08:48PM (#31442110)
Zig is still very much work-in-progress, much more so than Rust. I'd say it's too early to speak of traction there.
Re:Rust: A Critical Retrospective by UmbertoNoEco on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:01PM (#31442524)
OK, it has been 6 years, so fair enough, let's wait and see at least for the 1.0
Re:Rust: A Critical Retrospective by loup-vaillant on Friday May 20, 2022 @01:49PM (#31450544)
That's the difference between Zig and Go.

As far as I can tell, Go was kinda rushed, and they called it 1.0 before they get to add the generics it obviously needed. And I bet adding those generics in a way that preserves backward compatibility was a bear.

Zig will be done when it's done.