News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by nvme0n1p1 on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:15AM (#50484747)
It's a 0.x project, let them cook. Building things takes time.

https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/std/#std.mem.findSe... didn't exist then, now it does.

And if i may quote from https://ziglang.org/download/0.17.0/release-notes.html:

> Zig has known bugs, miscompilations, and regressions.

> Even with Zig 0.17.x, working on a non-trivial project using Zig may require participating in the development process.

> When Zig reaches 1.0.0, Tier 1 support will gain a bug policy as an additional requirement.

If you're not willing to participate in the development process, then you should wait or use something else.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by simonask on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:44AM (#50485186)
Isn't that exactly what they're saying?

Some people (not its creators) talk about Zig as if it's anywhere near production ready. It's fine to be excited about it (there's a lot to be excited about), but we gotta be realistic.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by dnautics on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:53AM (#50485328)
No, the framing "give pause" is the soft of framing that people create FUD create
Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by llm_nerd on Friday November 13, 2026 @11:50AM (#50486182)
This whole thread is amazing, and I think people considering Zig should pay close attention.

This submission is advocating Zig over C for system programming. I pointed out a pretty significant reason why maybe you should pause that decision for a bit.

Now it's "FUD", also it's a beta and you're a beta tester, and it's 0.x, and look they disclaim that you shouldn't trust it, and...

This is a bizarre thread. These very comments are precisely why it should give pause (which isn't remotely "FUD", and what an utterly asinine claim). Zig looks neat and it might get there, but this absurd apologism and goalpost moving is not convincing to adopt the language.

Again, in a submission advocating using Zig for system programming. You couldn't script it better.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by nvme0n1p1 on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:58AM (#50485424)
Zig team: "Zig is 0.x and has known bugs"

llm_nerd: "I found a bug. This gives me pause about the whole zig project"

I don't see how the latter is a fair reaction given the former. They only just started working on the libc port (although it has been talked about for a while now)

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by diffxx on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:52AM (#50485314)
They have been cooking for over ten years. It is more than fair to say at this point that they are not capable of shipping a stable, reliable, fast and efficient compiler. It is fundamentally flawed and I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process.

Zig hides behind its pre 1.0 status to justify poor decision making while simultaneously actively trying to attract attention through marketing. That attention translates to resources and influence that are undeserved on the technical merits.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by nvme0n1p1 on Friday November 13, 2026 @11:07AM (#50485557)
> I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process.

Alright then go for it, hotshot. We're waiting.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by alexrp on Friday November 13, 2026 @01:50PM (#50487993)
> It is fundamentally flawed and I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process.

Always happy to learn.

Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by acedTrex on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:52AM (#50485315)
The dudes name is "llm_nerd" its not worth engaging lol. These are the same people that saw the bun rewrite in rust break tls and fail open and shrugged.
Re:Why Zig over C for Systems Programming by forgotpwd16 on Friday November 13, 2026 @11:29AM (#50485873)
It has been 0.x for 10y+. At this point won't be off if considered 0ver (https://0ver.org) and permanently beta.