Have you tried rust? how does it compared to zig?
* just asking
Rust is a modern C++/OCaml
So if you enjoy C++, Rust is for you. If you enjoy C and wish it was more verbose and more modern, try Zig.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
It replaces C++ for me, so I would say it's "a C++"
Rust gives us memory safety by default and some awesome ML-ish type system features among other things, which are things we didn’t already have. Memory safety and almost totally automatic memory management with no runtime are big things too.
Go, meanwhile, is like a cleaner more modern Java with less baggage. You might also compare it to Python, but compiled.
Are there any other languages that provide this? Would genuinely consider the switch for some stuff if so.
I know, timelines not matching up, etc.
Zig offers no such thing. It would be a like-for-like replacement of an unsafe old language with an unsafe new one. May even be a better language, but that's not enough reason to overcome the burden.
It’s like people do it just because Zig is very comparable to C. So the more complex Rust must be like something else that is also complex, right? And C++ is complex, so…
But that is a bit nonsensical. Rust isn’t very close to C++ at all.
For example, high performance servers (voltlane.net), programming languages (https://github.com/HF-Foundation, https://github.com/lionkor/mcl-rs, and one private one), webservers (beampaint.com) and lots of other domains.
Rust is close to C++ in that it is a systems language that allows a reasonable level of zero-cost abstractions.
If you enjoy C and wish it was less verbose and more modern, try Go.
Rust is not object-oriented.
That makes your statement wrong.
- Zig: Let's have a simple language with as few footguns as possible and make good code easy to write. However we value explicitness and allow the developer to do anything they need to do. C interoperability is a primary feature that is always available. We have run time checks for as many areas of undetermined behaviour as we can.
- Rust: let's make the compiler the guardian of what is safe to do. Unless the developer hits the escape hatch, we will disallow behaviour to keep the developer safe. To allow the compiler to reason about safety we will have an intricate type system which will contain concepts like lifetimes and data mobility. This will get complex sometimes so we will have a macro system to hide that complexity.
Zig is a lot simpler than Rust, but I think it asks more of it's developer.
* except for having unused variables. Those are so dangerous the compiler will refuse the code every time.
There are no destructors so all the memory ownership footguns are still there.
If you want to auto-generate destructors, zig has really good comptime features that can let you do that.
Zig goes for simplicity while removing a few footguns. It's more oriented towards programmer enjoyment. Keep in mind that programmers don't distinguish ease of writing code from ease of writing unforeseen errors.
Rust is what you want your colleagues to write, to enforce good practices and minimise bugs. It's also what I want my past self to have written, because that guy is always doing things that make my present life harder.
Rust is what you use when you'd rather spend time doing sales and marketing for Rust than building software.
IMO, Rust is good for modeling static constraints - ideal when there's multiple teams of varying skill trying to work on the same codebase, as the contracts for components are a lot clearer. Zig is good for expressing system-level constructs efficiently: doing stuff like self-referential/intrusive data structures, cross-platform simd, and memory transformations is a lot easier in Zig than Rust.
Personally, I like Zig more.
[0] https://crates.io/users/kprotty
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95801
[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a63150b9cb14896fc22f9...
