Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by tonetegeatinst on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:21AM (#45346644)

As far as my understanding of zig goes....it can compile into C....so if you really want secure C code you can compile zig into C?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by dayvster on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:26AM (#45346700)

Not quite, it can translate C into zig using the `translate-c` command that it comes with. But it compiles directly into machine code

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by osmsucks on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:38AM (#45346876)

There is a C backend, so you can also compile Zig into C if you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by dayvster on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:40AM (#45346900)

yea but, that's extremely edge case, or at least I have not yet encountered a need for that personally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by Cloudef on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:59AM (#45347156)

Zig can compile into C, but it's not portable C

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Zig Feels More Practical Than Rust by Ar-Curunir on Tuesday September 23, 2025 @09:39AM (#45346886)

While Zig prevents certain kinds of memory safety issues that C does not, it still suffers from memory-safety issues not found in safe Rust.

[ Parent | on HN ]