Zig is becoming more production-worthy

Re:Zig is becoming more production-worthy by ihateolives on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @08:05AM (#31987183)

Having to build your own version of the compiler to fix this annoyance is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It should be a simple flag, whichever way the default, but it shouldn't require building a compiler.

That's nuts, both in a bad and a good way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig is becoming more production-worthy by chienandalou on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @10:17AM (#31988444)

I agree, it should be a flag. Or it should be a warning in debug builds, and an error in release builds.

I'm not sure it's nuts to build the compiler to 'fix' this, though. Customizing and building a tool really isn't such a big deal when you think about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig is becoming more production-worthy by anonymoushn on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @09:39AM (#31988076)

I have my own version of the stdlib because I don't think formatting a number with leading zeroes should involve parsing UTF-8. It's pretty easy!

I once said I would like arrays of 33 or more items to be Default and my resident Rustacean told me step 1 is to rebuild libcore after changing the appropriate macro :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zig is becoming more production-worthy by Gibbon1 on Sunday July 17, 2022 @04:02AM (#32125217)

That funny. I have one where octal is banned.

[ Parent | on HN ]