undefined | Better HN

0 pointsagapon6y ago0 comments

I mean, is this C-like?

  fn add(a: i32, b: i32) i32 {
      return a + b;
  }

0 comments

11 comments · 3 top-level

balfirevic6y ago· 5 in thread

It could hardly be more C-like. Are you getting distracted by the syntax?

kelnos6y ago

When we talk about something being "C-like", the syntax is what we're talking about. Being "distracted by the syntax" doesn't make sense when the syntax is the entire point of the statement being made.

dnautics6y ago

Admittedly it's been decades since I've done any C (literally since 1999, except for an LD_PRELOAD shim I wrote about 5 years ago) but being someone who prefers C and other ALGOL-syntax derivates I find the syntax to be relatively easy to grok. One advantage over C is that the confusing pointer/array/function pointer thing has a well-defined order in Zig, there's no "spiral order" nonsense going on.

1 more reply

ant6n6y ago

They are both close-to-the-metal, few-abstractions, procedural, imperative Systems programming languages with explicit memory management and layout.

balfirevic6y ago

When "we" talk? I suggest that in the future if you mean syntactically similar you say syntactically similar.

But then, of course, it wouldn't have much to do with Zig's "appeal as better C than C", which prompted this whole discussion.

agaponOP6y ago

Exactly. I would appreciate an explanation what makes zig c-like if its syntax is nothing like c? What does "c-like" even mean then?

AndyKelley6y ago· 3 in thread

Yes: https://godbolt.org/z/72Dvpe

iruoy6y ago

Simple stuff like this looks very similar to Rust: https://godbolt.org/z/spkKai

Rust quickly becomes harder though, while Zig is much easier to grasp.

tsimionescu6y ago

The fact that they compile to the same assembly instruction does not make them similar source code.

abainbridge6y ago

The languages are similar enough that the Zig tool-chain can translate C source into Zig source. There's mostly a one-to-one correspondence.

1 more reply

yarrel6y ago

It's about 50% C-like. Which is giving people a That Dress experience answering yes or no to the question.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

11 comments · 3 top-level

balfirevic6y ago· 5 in thread

It could hardly be more C-like. Are you getting distracted by the syntax?

kelnos6y ago

dnautics6y ago

1 more reply

ant6n6y ago

They are both close-to-the-metal, few-abstractions, procedural, imperative Systems programming languages with explicit memory management and layout.

balfirevic6y ago

When "we" talk? I suggest that in the future if you mean syntactically similar you say syntactically similar.

But then, of course, it wouldn't have much to do with Zig's "appeal as better C than C", which prompted this whole discussion.

agaponOP6y ago

Exactly. I would appreciate an explanation what makes zig c-like if its syntax is nothing like c? What does "c-like" even mean then?

AndyKelley6y ago· 3 in thread

Yes: https://godbolt.org/z/72Dvpe

iruoy6y ago

Simple stuff like this looks very similar to Rust: https://godbolt.org/z/spkKai

Rust quickly becomes harder though, while Zig is much easier to grasp.

tsimionescu6y ago

The fact that they compile to the same assembly instruction does not make them similar source code.

abainbridge6y ago

The languages are similar enough that the Zig tool-chain can translate C source into Zig source. There's mostly a one-to-one correspondence.

1 more reply

yarrel6y ago

It's about 50% C-like. Which is giving people a That Dress experience answering yes or no to the question.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse