I am still a little salty about `@cImport` removal, though! without it, I can't confidently call it "Kotlin of C" anymore.
Didn't Go already do that?
> I am so used to thinking that Zig, Rust, and the likes are only viable in niches where C is viable, but no. not anymore at least - once this linker and incremental compilation on other targets land, Zig will become THE C replacement
Yes, and it will still only be useful in the same niche that C is because the entire philosophy of Zig is to essentially be like C. You're never going to interate at JS/Python speeds with Zig because you'll always be wrangling with memory lifecycles, object lifecycles, etc...
Rust is significantly different.
Zig is for when you need control over the allocator (also many such cases).
no. GC pauses turn any serious systems work into hell.
> Yes, and it will still only be useful [...]
this does not exclude the possibility of creation of libraries that manage everything for me within their domain of responsibility, such as dvui
That sounds good on paper. But as a guy who tried to learn Kotlin and only it. It comes with baggage to learn Java to use its libraries because... You know... they interact seamlessly and stuff. In the end, for a new learner, it might actually make things harder.
Nothing about Zig and C here, just a bit salty from my experience with Kotlin.
And JavaScript comes with the baggage of learning about web browsers and NodeJS's "fs" module.
this makes porting projects gradually, file by file, rather cumbersome. now I have to rewrite quite a lot of Chocolate Doom because my port was halfway there and then @cImport got gutted... or keep going with Zig 0.16.2 until it's either 100% Zig or has little enough files that upgrading won't make my build.zig file implode in lines of code
Pretty much correct, yes.
> Zig will become THE C replacement and that will let me iterate at the speed of JS or Python with performance of C or Rust.
Fundamentally impossible. C/Zig/Rust have 100% performance as a top goal, which has to be traded off with something else and that's always realistically going to be programmer work/effort/time.
You can't have a house built 100% fast but also 100% cheap and with 100% quality. At best you could cleverly abuse the law of diminishing returns and aim for ~80% in all three areas. That's basically what Go's trying to do.
> once this linker and incremental compilation on other targets land,
In any case, why would a better linker and faster compile times of all things achieve this supposed goal?
Beyond being low level, Zig is still pretty memory unsafe and has you make choices about each allocation, making it unappealing as an applications language. Zig and Python are completely different worlds.
then how does Zig achieve ~90%?
> In any case, why would a better linker and faster compile times of all things achieve this supposed goal?
sub-100ms rebuild is actually more important as the project grows. when you iterate, you think differently. picking different colors or fonts or whatnot becomes much cheaper, so you are more willing to try
That’s essentially what technological development does, is make those tradeoffs more favorable.
Since you ask, the front end is self hosting in NQP and with the ripening RakuAST project increasingly in Raku Grammars. The new AST (6.e.PREVIEW) will bring much better introspection and high level optimization handles. So the potential to refactor/rewrite the VM for substantial speed gains is wide open.
Anyway those with skills and interest are welcome to join the -Ofun at https://raku.org/community
Zig focus on compilation speed and give developers control (even more so than C). Raku, as a Perl descendant is a giant toybox and there is no one telling you not to use them. Both have in common that they give a lot of freedom to developers, which is really enjoyable. They also have in common that they are not very mature and have a limited market share and fine with it, and a community that looks genuinely nice.
The opposite of Rust. The language has the "bondage and discipline" philosophy, kind of like ADA, the idea being that it does everything it can to stop you from making mistakes. There is a lot of value in that, but it is not particularly fun. Its community was similarly defined by rules, its code of conduct was infamous, again, it serves a purpose but to me, putting the rules forward doesn't make the community look like a fun place to be. And there is the evangelism, the Rust community is aggressive "rewrite it in Rust!", "no memory unsafe languages!", etc... I have never seen such attitude from the Zig community. Sure they love their language and will tell you it is the best in the world, but they will not say that you are wrong for not using it. As for Raku, they don't seem to care that no one else use their language, they just hope it will happen eventually if they continue going forward.
This is more of a meme than reality at this point.
Good luck and happy hacking!
Is any of that already lying around in Zig?
Also obviously it is about how fast the actual implementation of the compiler/build-system is.
Iteration speed is everything now, if and only if you learn from the additional iterations.
32743 lines; 0.953s
It's the opposite: people have become more receptive to communication about this work now that there's "drama" attached to it.
This post I co-authored with Andrew is from 2020. In it we announce the idea of getting rid of LLVM from the debug build pipeline and since then work has been steadily going forward, it's just not trivial to bootstrap a full compiler pipeline for all major targets, but we're finally getting there.
In any case, I'm super glad for this milestone (and impressed!).
What if that’s true and what if that’s not true?
The author is strongly biased and opinionated on his architectural and design choices, and those choices resonate with many.
I would faster get back to Modula-2 or Object Pascal.
The Zig team between 0.16 and this has really made me glad I chose Zig as the target instead of Rust - which probably would've been a lot easier to target (since it's already memory safe).
I believed it had the best build system design and was the best transpilation target, and I really believe that 6 months later.
The main reason I wanted no GC is because I think aliasing is the root of all evil, and I want a language with zero global complexity (but doesn't require a PhD to use).
It's not clear how much concurrency is part of what you're trying to solve.
All I could find is this: https://blorp-lang.org/docs/concurrency/ - which doesn't give me much as to how you handle shared memory, safety, deadlocks, etc.
Definitely down to chat more - looks like you've got some traction, which is impressive and awesome!
I'd love to pick your brain as it appears you're further along than I am.
But I assume that any kind of incremental linking, is mutually exclusive with link-time optimization? I.e. you'd never want to use this option for a release build?
It has been done before.
And LTO is when the C people and the C++ people started to agree.
Will the Windows side for 0.17.x get some compiler improvements as well or is this Linux only?
It's evaded other linkers in the past: gcc, llvm, mold etc....