Hi, author of this devlog here! Not to dismiss concerns about breaking language changes, but there seems to be a bit of a misconception here that this compiler change was highly breaking and will require significant effort from Zig users to update for. Perhaps I unintentionally gave that impression in the devlog or the PR writeup, apologies if so---but it's not the case! Although there were breaking changes in this patch, they were quite minor: most users are unlikely to hit them, and if they do then they're straightforward to deal with.
For a concrete example, while testing this branch, I tried building ZLS (https://github.com/zigtools/zls/). To do that, the only change I had to make was changing `.{}` to `.empty` in a couple of its dependencies (i.e. not even in ZLS itself!). This was needed because I removed some default values from `std.ArrayList` (so the change was in standard library code rather than the language). Those default values had actually already been deprecated (with intent to remove) for around a year, so this wasn't exactly a new change either.
As another example, Andrew has updated Awebo (https://codeberg.org/awebo-chat/awebo), a text and voice chat application, to the new version of Zig. Across Awebo's entire dependency tree (which includes various packages for graphics, audio, and probably some other stuff), the full set of necessary changes was:
* Same as above, change `.{}` to `.empty` in a few places, due to removal of deprecated defaults
* Add one extra `comptime` annotation to logic which was constructing an array at comptime
* Append `orelse @alignOf(T)` onto an expression to deal with a newly-possible `null` case
These are all trivial fixes which Zig developers would be able to do pretty much on autopilot upon seeing the compile errors.
So, while there were a handful of small breaking changes, they don't seem to me like a particularly big deal (for a language where some level of breakage is still allowed). The main thing this PR achieved was instead a combination of bugfixes, and enhancements to existing features (particularly incremental compilation).
I made one of the comments that seems to be perceived a critical of the changes (I made a statement about the seemingly brief paragraph on changing semantics). As I replied to Andrew, I will tell you: the PR had a large amount of planning and implementation that seems of great quality. I certainly did not intend to discredit you or the obviously large amount of work you have done previously or on the change. I guess that will teach me to post without even more caveats.
Oh, no problem at all & no shade of any kind intended! I just wanted to clarify this point since it seems like a good few people got that misconception. That doesn't mean you can't discuss breakage anyway, or ask questions of the development / language design process :)
I am going to ask a question that is is definitely not the place for, but I am not involved with Zig in any way and am curious, so I hope you'll indulge me.
I noticed the following comment was added to lib/std/multi_array_list.zig [0] with this change:
/// This pointer is always aligned to the boundary `sizes.big_align`; this is not specified
/// in the type to avoid `MultiArrayList(T)` depending on the alignment of `T` because this
/// can lead to dependency loops. See `allocatedBytes` which `@alignCast`s this pointer to
/// the correct type.
How could relying on `@alignOf(T)` in the definition of `MultiArrayList(T)` cause a loop? Even with `T` itself being a MultiArrayList, surely that is a fully distinct, monomorphized type? I expect I am missing something obvious.
I had to search for this, but managed to find the relevant mlugg@ comment[0] on the ZSF zulip:
> i had to change the bytes field from [*]align(@alignOf(T)) u8 to just [*]u8 (and cast the alignment back in the like one place that field is accessed). this wasn't necessary for MultiArrayList in and of itself, but it was necessary for embedding a MultiArrayList(T) inside of T without a dependency loop, like
const T = struct {
children: MultiArrayList(T),
};
// reproduced for completeness:
fn MultiArrayList(comptime T: type) type {
return struct {
bytes: [*]align(@alignOf(T)) u8,
// ...
};
}
I would really like to hear from people using Zig in production/semi-serious applications; where software stability is important.
How's your experience with the constantly changing language? How're your update/rewrite cycles looking like? Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
I know Bun's using zig to a degree of success, was wondering how the rest were doing.
I maintain a ~250K LoC Zig compiler code base [0]. We've been through several breaking Zig releases (although the code base was much smaller for most of that time; Writergate is the main one we've had to deal with since the code base crossed the 100K LoC mark).
The language and stdlib changing hasn't been a major pain point in at least a year or two. There was some upgrade a couple of years ago that took us awhile to land (I think it might have been 0.12 -> 0.13 but I could be misremembering the exact version) but it's been smooth sailing for a long time now.
These days I'd put breaking releases in the "minor nuisance" category, and when people ask what I've liked and disliked about using Zig I rarely even remember to bring it up.
What's the main value proposition of roc?
I found interesting tags (like symbols in mathematica) and tags with payloads (like python namedtuple or dataclasses). I haven't seen this elsewhere. Otherwise seems quite typical (Pattern matching is quite common, for example).
Example programs that you couldn't easily express in other languages?
I've worked on two "production" zig codebases: tigerbeetle [0] and sig [1].
These larger zig projects will stick to a tagged release (which doesn't change), and upgrade to newly tagged releases, usually a few days or months after they come out. The upgrade itself takes like a week, depending on the amount of changes to be done. These projects also tend to not use other zig dependencies.
Two different philosophical approaches with Zig and Rust.
- 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.
don't know if it's still on the table, but Andrew has hinted that the unused variables error may in the future still produce an executable artefact but return an nonzero return code for the compiler. And truly fatal errors would STILL produce an executable artefact too, just one that prints "sorry this compilation had a fatal error" to stdout.
If I comment out sections of code while debugging or iterating I don't want a compile error for some unused variable or argument. Warning. fine, but this happens to me so frequently that the idea of unused variables being an error is insane to me.
It is insane and you are completely right. This has been a part of programming for over 50 years. Unfortunately you aren't going to get anywhere with zig zealots, they just get mad when confronted with things like this that have no justification, but they don't want to admit it's a mistake.
i think the plan is to make no distinction between error and warning, but have trivial errors still build. that said i wouldn't be surprised if they push that to the end because it seems like a great ultrafilter for keeping annoying people out so they don't try to influence the language.
They also made a carriage return crash the compiler so it wouldn't work with any default text files on windows, then they blamed the users for using windows (and their windows version of the compiler!).
It's not exactly logic land, there is a lot of dogma and ideology instead of pragmatism.
Some people would even reply how they were glad it made life difficult for windows users. I don't think they had an answer for why there was a windows version in the first place.
I'm not sure why you shouldn't make your compiler accept CRs (weird design decision), but fixing it on the user-side isn't exactly hard either. I don't know an editor that doesn't have an option for using LF vs CRLF.
The unused variable warning is legitimately really annoying though and has me inserting `_ = x;` all over the place and then forgetting to delete it, which is imo way worse than just... having it be a warning.
I don't know an editor that doesn't have an option for using LF vs CRLF.
And I don't know any other languages that don't parse a carriage return.
The point is that it was intentionally done to antagonize windows even though they put out a windows version. Some people defend this by saying that it's easy to turn off, some people defend it by saying windows users should be antagonized.
No zig people ever said this was a mistake, it was all intentional.
I'm never going to put up with behavior like that with the people making tools actively working against me.
defer is still something you have to consciously put in every time so it destroys the value semantics that C++ has, which is the important part. You don't have to "just write defer after a string", you can just use a string.
The 'not a problem for me' is what people would say about manual memory in C too. Defer is better but it isn't as good as what is already in use.
That's disingenous, Rust tries to minimize errors, first at compile time then at runtime, even if it at some discomfort of to programer.
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.
Yes, I've written a few unsafe-focused crates [0], some of which have been modified & merged into the stdlib [1] [2] exposing them to the fringe edge-cases of Rust like strict provenance.
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.
As someone who never liked writing anything C++ since 2000+ (did like it before) I cannot agree with this. C++ and Rust are not comparable in this sense at all.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
I think the comparison is fair, strictly in the sense that both Rust and C++ are designed around extensible programming via a sort of subtyping (C++ classes, Rust traits), and similar resource management patterns (ownership, RAII), where Zig and C do not have anything comparable.
My take, unfortunately, is that Zig might be a more modern C but that gives us little we don’t already have.
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.
Zig gives things we really dont have yet: C + generics + good const eval + good build system + easy cross compilation + modern niceties (optionals, errors, sum types, slices, vectors, arbitrary bit packing, expression freedom).
Are there any other languages that provide this? Would genuinely consider the switch for some stuff if so.
Definitely not. Rust gives you a tangible benefit in terms of correctness. It's such a valuable benefit that it outweighs the burden of incorporating a new language in the kernel, with all that comes with it.
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.
actually that's not true at all. Zig offers you some more safety than C. And it also affords you a compiler architecture and stdlib that is so well designed you could probably bolt on memory safety relatively easily as a 3rd party static checker
"More safety than C" is an incredibly low bar. These are hygiene features, which is great, but Rust offers a paradigm shift. It's an entirely different ballpark.
I don't think you've necessarily understood the scope and impact of the borrow checker. Bounds checking is just a sane default (hygiene), not a game changer.
so yes, I understand that it's important. It doesn't need to be in the compiler though? I think it's likely the case that you also don't need to have annotations littering the language.
I wish you good luck! Successive attempts to achieve similar levels of analysis without annotations have failed in the C++ space, but I look forward to reading your results.
Memory safety by default in kernel sounds like a good idea :). However I don't think that C is being _replaced_ by Rust code, it's rather that more independent parts that don't need to deeply integrate with the existing C constructs can be written in a memory safe language, and IMO that's a fine tradeoff
I believe Rust is mainly being used for driver development, which seems a great fit (there's so many people of different skill levels who write Linux drivers, so this should help avoid bad driver code being exploited). It may also end up in the core systems, but it also might not fit there as well.
It is not about timelines. Linux Torvalds doesn't spend nights reading bunch of books with crabs on their covers rewriting random bits and pieces of the kernel in Rust. It is basically a dedicated group of people sponsored by megacorps doing the heavy lifting. If megacorps wanted Zig we could have had it in the kernel instead (Linux might have rejected it though, not sure what he thinks of it).
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.
I wrote lots of C++ before learning Rust, and I enjoyed it. Since learning Rust, I write no more C++. I found no place in which C++ is a better fit than Rust, and so it's my "new C++".
There are places a language could be a better fit, but which haven't adopted it. E.g. most languages over typescript on the backend, most systems programming languages over Java for games.
If you define success for Rust as "everything is written in Rust", then Rust will never be successful. The project also doesn't pursue success in those terms, so it is like complaining about how bad a salmon is at climbing trees.
That is however how the Rust Evangelism Strike Force does it all the time, hence these kind of remarks I tend to do.
C++ is good for some things regardless of its warts due to ecosystem, and Rust is better in some other ones, like being much safer by default.
Both will have to coexist in decades to come, but we have this culture that doesn't accept matches that end in a draw, it is all about being in the right tribe.
So... Like, what? Do you agree that there is no technical reason for LLVM to be written in C++ over Rust?
Have you considered that you perhaps do more damage to the conversation by having it with this hypothetical strike force instead of the people that are actually involved in the conversation? Whose feelings are you trying to protect? What hypocrisy are you trying to expose? Is the strike force with us in the room right now?
I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.
And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
Or ignoring that for the time being NVidia, Intel, AMD, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, CERN, Argonne National Laboratory and similar, hardly bother with Rust based software for what they do day to day.
They have employees on WG14, WG21, contribute to GCC/clang upstream, and so far have shown no interest in having Rust around on their SDKs or research papers.
> I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.
Everybody agrees with that, though? Including the people writing rustc.
There's a space for a different thing that does codegen differently (e.g. Cranelift), but that's neither here nor there.
> And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
There's a huge difference between "Rust depends on LLVM because you couldn't write LLVM in Rust [so we still need C++]" and then "Rust depends on LLVM because LLVM is pretty good". The former is false, the latter is true. Rust is perfectly suited for writing LLVM's eventual replacement, but that's a massive undertaking with very little real value right now.
Rust is young and arguably incomplete for certain use cases, and it'll take a while to mature enough too meet all use cases of C++, but that will happen long before very large institutions are also able to migrate their very large C++ code bases and expertise. This is a multi-decade process.
Tbh Go is also really nice for various local tools where you don’t want something as complex as C++ but also don’t want to depend on the full C# runtime (or large bundles when self-contained), or the same with Java.
With Wails it’s also a low friction way to build desktop software (using the heretical web tech that people often reach for, even for this use case), though there are a few GUI frameworks as well.
Either way, self contained executables that are easy to make and during development give you a rich standard library and not too hard of a language to use go a long way!
- It was explicitly intended to "feel dynamically-typed"
- Tries to live by the zen of Python (more than Python itself!)
- Was built during the time it was fashionable to use Python for the kinds of systems it was designed for, with Google thinking at the time that they would benefit from moving their C++ systems to that model if they could avoid incurring the performance problems associated with Python. Guido Van Rossum was also employed at Google during this time. They were invested in that sort of direction.
- Often reads just like Python (when one hasn't gone deep down the rabbit hole of all the crazy Python features)
Go has a garbage collector though. This makes it unsuitable for many use cases where you could have used C or C++ in the past. Rust and Zig don't have a GC, so they are able to fill this role.
GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics), but would also be unwanted for other use cases where worst case latency is important, such as realtime audio/video processing, games (where you don't want stutter, remember Minecraft in Java?), servers where tail latency matters a lot, etc.
> GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics)
Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it? It doesn't really contradict what the parent comment stated about Go feeling like modern C (with a boehm gc included if you will). We're using it this way and it feels just fine. I'd be happy to see parts of our C codebase rewritten in Go, but since that code is security sensitive and has already been through a number of security reviews there's little motivation to do so.
> Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it?
My specific use case is yes, but there are a ton of microcontrollers running realtime tasks all around us: brakes in cars, washing machine controllers, PID loops to regulate fans in your computer, ...
Embedded systems in general are far more common than "normal" computers, and many of them have varying levels of realtime requirements. Don't believe me? Every classical computer or phone will contain multiple microcontrollers, such as an SSD controller, a fan controller, wifi module, cellular baseband processor, ethernet NIC, etc. Depending on the exact specs of your device of course. Each SOC, CPU or GPU will contain multiple hidden helper cores that effectively run as embedded systems (Intel ME, AMD PSP, thermal management, and more). Add to that all the appliances, cars, toys, IOT things, smartcards, etc all around us.
No, I don't think it is niche. Fewer people may work on these, but they run in far more places.
Not familiar with it, but reading the github page it isn't clear how it deals with GC. Do you happen to know?
Some embedded use cases would be fine with a GC (MicroPython is also a thing after all). Some want deterministic deallocation. Some want no dynamic allocator at all. From what I have seen, far more products are in the latter two categories. While many hobby projects fall into the first two categories. That is of course a broad generalization, but there is some truth to it.
Many products want to avoid allocation entirely either because of the realtime properties, or because they are cost sensitive and it is worth spending a little bit extra dev effort to be able to save an Euro or two and use a cheaper microcontroller where the allocator overhead won't fit (either the code in flash, or just the bookkeeping in RAM).
Yes, just like with real time Java for embedded targets from PTC and Aicas, it is its own implementation with another GC algorithm, additionally there are runtime APIs for regions/arenas.
Here is the commercial product for which it was designed,
You can also see it differently: If the language dictates a 4x increase in memory or CPU usage, you have set a much closer deadline before you need to upgrade the machine or rearchitect your code to become a distributed system by a factor 4 as well.
Previously, delivering a system (likely in C++) that consumed factor 4 fewer resources was an effort that cost developer time at a much higher factor, especially if you had uptime requirements. With Rust and similar low-overhead languages, the ratio changes drastically. It is much cheaper to deliver high-performance solutions that scale to the full capabilities of the hardware.
I think the issue is OOP patterns are one part missing features, one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++, SmallTalk, that it ends up too broad.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
> one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The issue is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming. Of course, imperative, functional, and object-oriented language can all be either mutable or immutable, but that seems to evade some.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone, because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted in a similar way. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?
> The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
Exactly. It isn't functional. It doesn't use functions. It uses message passing instead. That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk. It didn't fit within the use of "imperative" and "functional" that preceded it.
> But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
That is the thesis: That Smalltalk is neither imperative nor functional. That is why it was given its own category. Maybe you've already forgotten, but I will remind that it was Smalltalk's creator that invented the term "object-oriented" for Smalltalk. Smalltalk being considered something different is the only reason for why "object-oriented" exists in the lexicon.
Erlang is the language that challenges the common ground thesis: It has both functions with encapsulation and message passing with encapsulation. However, I think that is easily resolved by accepting that it is both functional and object-oriented. That is what Joe Armstrong himself settled on and I think we can too.
> What I prefer is looking at it as it's used.
And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here. Everyone has their own vastly different definition. Just look at how many different definitions we got in this thread alone.
> No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit.
Actually, absent of context defining whether you are referring to culinary or botanical, many actually do think of a cucumber as a fruit. The whole "did you know a tomato is actually a fruit?" is something that made the big leagues in the popular culture. However, your general point is sound: The definitions used are consistent across most people. That is not the case for object-oriented, though. Again, everyone, their brother, and pjmlp have their own thoughts and ideas about what it means. Looking at use isn't going to settle on a useful definition.
Realistically, if you want to effectively use "object-oriented" in your communication, you are going to have to explicitly define it each time.
> That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk.
Sure but your definition doesn't cover it. If language for which the term was coined, it's a bit meaningless, ain't it.
Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
I can see them being necessary but not enough to classify something as OOP.
> And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here.
Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP, but for example C isn't.
Same way when people say and give me a fruit (as in fruits and vegetables), you'd be looked oddly if you gave a cucumber, rather than an apple.
Same way can be thought of OOP. The common definition is basically covers Message-passing-languages, and inheritance/prototype based languages.
> Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions:
Let me also reiterate that there are other axis of concerns. Imperative, functional, and object-oriented are not trying to categorize every last feature a programming language might have. Mutable/immutable, or polymorphic/monomorphic, etc. are others concern and can be independently labeled as such.
> Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP
Many do, but just as many hold on to the original definition. Try as you might, you're not going to find a common definition here, I'm afraid. If you want to use the term effectively, you're going to have to explicitly define it each time.
If you are pointing out that there is no consistent definition for OOP, I agree. I've said so multiple times. Yes, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
It is not clear where you think that might otherwise fit into our discussion? I, to the best of my ability, spelled out the historical definitions that we are talking about so that we had a shared understanding. What someone else may have defined the same words as is irrelevant.
I think we can agree that these dividing lines aren't even useful, but the history behind them is understandable. In the beginning there was imperative programming, named to differentiate from unstructured programming. Then came encapsulation, which didn't fit under imperative, so they named it functional to separate it from imperative. But then came Smalltalk, and it recognized that it doesn't fit under imperative or functional, so it gave itself the name "object-oriented".
If we could go back in time we'd realize that none of these names bring any significance [hence why there is no consistent definition] and throw them away. But we cannot go back in time. We could recognize today that they are just a historical curiosity and throw them away now, but it seems there is too much emotional attachment to them at this point.
So, if you want to use them to satisfy your emotional desires, you can! But you need to also explicitly define them each time so that the reader/listener understands what you mean by it. Failure to do so means they will pick their own pet definition, and then you will talk past each other. There is no commonality found around these terms because, again, any definition you choose (pjmlp's, mine, yours, anyone's) none of them convey any truly useful information, so any definition offered is never retained by anyone else.
> It's pjmlp's insistence that Rust is object-oriented.
It is, for some definition of object-oriented. But this perfectly highlights how there isn't useful information to be found in the use of the term. Even if we all agreed on what object-oriented means, what would you learn from it? Nothing, is what. It was a pointless statement and we can accept it as such.
Sure, for some definition of red, green is red. E.g., colorblind people. I'm interested in more broadly accepted jargon.
The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
It's not message-passing sense (can't do cool fancy things* a la Ruby or Smalltalk); nor is it inheritance-based (can't do inheritance-based nor prototype-based OOP patterns).
There is one more mathematical definition of whether two features are equal, but it involves languages, local macros, and Turing machines. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc
* There was some kind of message recorder and playback in Ruby/Smalltalk, that I can't find. Basically send methods to objects and record them, then playback them at later date. Will update if I find it.
> The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
May I suggest "programming language"? I think you will find that most everyone agrees that Rust is a programming language.
In context, it's functional, but I think you rejecting that historical definition means that you agree with me that the attempt at categorization here doesn't provide any useful information. So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
If I take a walk down the street and tell the first guy I meet, "Hey, Rust is a programming language", what information did he miss out on that you find critical?
When we establish that, we might find out there is already a widely recognized term. You won't find it in "object-oriented", however. It has never been used in a context where the information was useful. Even the original message passing definition was never useful as you always had to explain what message passing is at the same time anyway, negating the value of a single word to use as a shorthand.
Words are not given to us naturally by the universe. They are a human invention. Consistent definitions for words only become accepted consistently when those humans find utility in adopting something consistent. "If you build it, they will come" only works in movies.
> So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
Expressivity. As the video I linked before shows, there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't. Or lambda's or async.
What terms like "message passing" and "inheritance-based" capture is unique ability of each language to do something novel* other languages can't. Rust as of now lacks such capabilities, although it can probably simulate them to some extent.
*For message passing, it's the method record and replayer.
For inheritance-based it can be something like easy DOM manipulation.
Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language. But then I'm going to ask: What does expressivity mean?
Ruby is always hailed for its expressivity. Is it also an expressive programming language despite having very little in common with Rust technically?
It seems to me you're going back down the road Kay did thinking that "object-oriented" could become the way to describe his actor based, message passing model. It never caught on because what that means isn't well understood and had to be explained in more detail, so a single word didn't add any value, and thus nobody ever took note of it.
> there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't.
Well, I suggest we have a way to say that: {X} {has|does not have} exceptions. The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see. If you need to talk about multiple features, then make it a list: {X} has exceptions, lambdas, and inheritance. Laundry list of features are easy to describe. It is when one wants to speak more conceptually that it is harder to find something of actual value as it is usually the concept that you want to explain.
And maybe that's all you really need to get the information conveyed here? "Rust is a programming language" → "Rust is a programming language that has x, y, and z."
> Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language.
That's not what I mean. Expressivity allows you to objectively test if two languages are different. The functional/objective/imperative are trying to capture some expressive features.
Using expressivity, you can finally put a Turing machine to that feeling and test it.
> The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see.
Missing the point. Message oriented language captures the expressivity of having
the ability to send and receive arbitrary methods. This is what I mean.
If OOP or MOP is just a marketing term, then it carries no value.
Yes, of course you can call objc_msgSend or equivalent in Rust just as you can in C. But you are pushing the object-oriented model into a library. It is not native to the language.
I am talking about Rust OOP language features for polymorphism, dynamic and static dispatch, encapsulation, interfaces.
Which allowed me to port 1:1 the Raytracing Weekend tutorial from the original OOP design in C++ to Rust.
Also the OOP model used by COM and WinRT ABIs, that Microsoft makes heavy use of in their Rust integration across various Windows and Office components.
Absolutely. That's why it is best to stick to the already established definitions. Kay was quite explicit about what "object-oriented" meant when the term was uttered for the first time; including specifically calling out C++ as not being object-oriented.
And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?
Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.
But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.
Zig is what you want to write, because it gets out of the way.
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.
Zig 0.15 is pretty stable. The biggest issue I face daily are silent compiler errors (SIGBUS) for trivial things, e.g. a typo in an import path. I've yet to find exactly why this [only sometimes] causes such a crash, but they're a real pain to figure out over a large changeset. `zig ast-check` sometimes catches the error, else Claude's pretty good at spotting where I accidentally re-used a variable name (again, 90% of the time I do that, it's an easy error, but the other 10%, I get a message-less compiler crash). It sounds like the changes in the OP might be specifically addressing these types of issues.
Also, my .zig-cache is currently at 173GB, which causes some issues on the small Linux ARM VPS I test with.
As for upgrades. I upgraded lightpanda to 0.14 then 0.15 and it was fine. I think for lightpanda, the 0.16 changes might not be too bad, with the only potential issue coming from our use of libcurl and our small websocket server (for CDP connections). Those layers are relatively isolated / abstracted, so I'm hopeful.
As a library developer, I've given up following / tracking 0.16. For one, the change don't resonate with me, and for another, it's changing far too fast. I don't think anyone expects 0.16 support in a library right now. I've gotten PRs for my "dev" branches from a few brave souls and everyone seems happy with that arrangement.
> The biggest issue I face daily are silent compiler errors (SIGBUS) for trivial things, e.g. a typo in an import path.
I don't use zig. My experience has been that caches themselves are sources of bugs (not talking about zig only, but in general). Clearing all relevant caches occasionally is useful when you're experiencing weird bugs.
I don't know why I was downvoted here. One day, I was experiencing weird compilation errors. Clearing the `ccache` C/C++ compiler cache helped get past the problem. Yes, I could have investigated in detail what was the issue and if ccache had a bug but sometimes you don't have the luxury of investigating everything your toolchain throws at you.
Never mind that the previous poster’s insight about caches is correct.
Zig has had caching bugs/issues/limitations that could be worked around by clearing the cache. (Has had, and more that likely still has, and will have.)
> zig's caching system is designed explicitly so that garbage collection could happen in one process simultaneously while the cache is being used by another process.
> I just ran WizTree to find out why my disk was full, and the zig cache for one project alone was like 140 GB.
> not only the .zig-cache directory in my projects, but the global zig cache directory which is caching various dependencies: I'm finding each week I have to clear both caches to prevent run-away disk space
Like what's going on? This doesn't seem normal at all. I also read somewhere that zig stores every version of your binary as well? Can you shed some light on why it works like this in zigland?
AFAIK garbage collection is basically not implemented yet. I myself do `ZIG_LOCAL_CACHE_DIR=~/.cache/zig` so I only have to nuke single directory whenever I feel like it.
20 seconds each time. Last time I tried to enable incremental build, it wasn't working for us. It was a while ago, but I think it had to do with something in our v8 bridge.
The forever backwards compatible promise of C++ was a tremendous design mistake that has resulted in mindshare death as of 2026. It might suck to have to modify your code to continue to get it to work, but it’s the right long term approach.
Mindshare death is a very large overstatement given the massive amount of legacy C++ out there that will be maintained by poor souls for year to come. But you are right, there used to be a great language hiding within C++ if the committee ever dared to break backwards compat. But even if they did it now it would be too late and they'd just end up with a worse Rust or Zig.
The biggest problem with C++ is that while everyone agrees there is a great language hiding in it, everyone also has a remarkably different idea of what that great language actually is.
I don't agree there's a great language hiding in C++. My high level objections would be that the type system is garbage and the syntax is terrible, so you'd need a different type system and syntax and that's nothing close to C++ after the changes.
After many years of insisting that "dialects" of C++ are a terrible idea, despite the reality that most C++ users have a specific dialect they use - Bjarne Stroustrup has endorsed essentially the same thing but as "profiles" to address safety issues. So for people who think there is a "great language" in there perhaps in C++ 29 or C++ 32 you will be able to find out for yourselves that you're wrong.
The C++ standards committee’s antiquated reliance on compiler “vendors” holds it back. They should adopt maintenance of clang and bless it as the reference compiler.
Rust existed nearly entirely on paper until 2009, when Mozilla started funding researchers to work on it full-time. It wasn't announced in any sort of official capacity until 2010, and had no official numbered release until 2012. It was less than three and a half years between 0.1 and 1.0, and in that time, hard as it is to believe, it underwent more overall change than Zig has.
- Cranelift applies less optimizations in exchange for faster compilation times, because it was developed to compile WASM (wasmtime), but turns out that is good enough for Rust debug builds.
- Cranelift does not support the wide range of platforms (AFAIK just X86_64 and some ARM targets)
I am not expert in compilers, but in databases space there are multiple prominent projects which gain traction, create ecosystem and making Rust strong contender against C++ dominance.
Same reason Android and Chrome and git and Linux weren't written in Rust when they started. Rust didn't exist. All of these projects integrate Rust now, after being single language projects for the longest time.
It's notable that the projects you mentioned mostly don't need to deal with adversarial user input, while the projects I mentioned do. That's one area that Rust shines in.
Rust will never be in Android user space, because it's not competing with Kotlin. Kotlin is already excellent there. Rust will replace the parts of Android written in C++ gradually. That was always the plan. It feels weird and cope-y to move the goalposts to say it's not a big deal unless Rust also replaces Kotlin.
Chrome only needs to replace the parts of their codebase that handle untrusted input with Rust to get substantial benefits. Like codec parsers. They don't need to rewrite everything, just the parts that need rewriting. The parts that are impossible to get right in C++, to the point where Chrome spins up separate processes to run that code.
Rust is the future for Android, and it will become an important of Chrome and Linux and git (starting 3.0). That's just the way it is.
Looking at LLVM build times I seriously believe that C would have been the better choice :/ (it wouldn't be a problem if LLVM wouldn't be the base for so many other projects)
Same for the Metal shading language. C++ adds exactly nothing useful to a shading language over a C dialect that's extended with vector and matrix math types (at least they didn't pick ObjC or Swift though).
...that's just because of the traditional-game-dev Stockholm syndrome towards C++ (but not too much C++ please!).
> Khronos future for Vulkan
As far as I'm aware Khronos is not planning to move the Vulkan API to C++ - and the 'modern C++' sample code which adds a C++ RAII wrapper on top of the Vulkan C API does more harm than good (especially since lifetime management for Vulkan object is a bit more involved than just adding a class wrapper with a destructor).
> now they make use of C++20, including modules if desired.
It's in line with many other shitty design decisions coming out of Khronos, so I'm not even surprised ;)
IMHO it's a pretty big problem when the spec is on an entirely different abstraction level than the sample code (those new samples also move significant code into 'helper classes', which means all the interesting stuff is hidden away).
Hilariously, they broke this compatibility. std::auto_ptr was an abomination, but removing it from the language was needless and undermined the long term stability that differentiates C++ from upstarts.
Mitchell Hashimoto (developer of Ghostty) talks about Zig a lot. Ghostty is written in it, and he seems to love it. The churn doesn't seem to bother him at all.
It's been a non-issue for us at tvScientific. Once or twice a year you settle in for a mass refactor, and when that's done you move on with your day.
Packages do fall behind. We only use a couple, so it's pretty easy to point to an internal fork while we wait for upstream to update or to accept our updates. That'd probably be a pain point if you were using a lot of them.
Running a ~20Kloc 0.16 Zig in prod, compiled and deployed as DebugSafe. No issues, superstable. This was rewrite of Node.js/Typescript computation module, and we chose Zig over Rust due to better support for f128. Zig/DebugSafe is approximately twice faster than TypeScript/Node.js 25 for our purpose, with approximately 70% less memory consumption.
We were not impacted by WriterGate and other recent scandals much because we primarily rely on libc, and we don't use much of Zig's I/O standard lib.
Zig has a better support for sqlite/JSON serialization (everything is strongly typed and validated) than Node.js, so that was a plus as well.
Zig minuses are well known: lack of syntax sugar for closures/lambdas/vtable, which makes it hard to isolate layers of code for independent development.
We use Arcs (atomic reference counting) with resource scopes (bumper allocators) extensively, so memory safety is not a concern despite aggressively multithreading logic. The default allocator automatically detects memory leaks, use-after-free, etc so we are planning to continue running it in DebugSafe indefinitely. We tried switching to ReleaseFast and gained about 25%, which is not that much faster to lose memory safety guarantees.
The language itself does not change much, but the std does. It depends on individuals, but some people rely less on the std, some copy the old code that they still need.
> Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
Using third party packages is quite problematic yes. I don't recommend using them too much personally, unless you want to make more work for yourself.
I recently tried to learn it and found it frustrating. A lot of docs are for 0.15 but the latest is (or was) 0.16 which changed a lot of std so none of the existing write ups were valid anymore. I plan to revisit once it gets more stable because I do like it when I get it to work.
I stopped updating the compiler at 0.14 for three projects. Getting the correct toolchain is part of my (incremental) build process. I don't use any external Zig packages.
I think one of the more PITA changes necessary to get these projects to 0.15 is removing `usingnamespace`, which I've used to implement a kind of mixin. The projects are all a few thousand LOC and it shouldn't be that much trouble, but enough trouble that none of what I gain from upgrading currently justify doing it. I think that's fine.
Bun uses JSC (JavaScriptCore) instead of V8. From what I understand, whereas Node/V8 has a higher tier 4 "top speed", JSC is more optimized for memory and is faster to tier up early/less overhead. Good for serverless. Great for agents -> Anthropic purchase.
> Good for serverless. Great for agents -> Anthropic purchase.
Surely nobody would use javascript for either yea? The weaknesses of the language are amplified in constrained environments: low certainty, high memory pressure, high startup costs.
I think Bun helps with the memory pressure, granted this is relative to V8. I'd pushback on the certainty with the reality that TS provides a significant drop in entropy while benefiting from what is a sweet spot between massive corpus size and low barrier for typical problem/use-case complexity. You'll never have the fastest product with JS, but you will always have good speed to market and be able to move quickly.
It's plenty usable. Most of the problems with the claude TUI stem from it being a TUI (no way to query the terminal emulator's displayed character grid), so you have to maintain your own state and try to keep them in sync, which more than a few TUIs will fail at at least sometimes, hence the popularity of conventions like Ctrl+L to redraw.
I don't know what a TUI is (i'm guessing "terminal ui" as if the term CLI doesn't exist lmao) but yea, they could have put effort into their product and not forced people to use their atrocious ncurses interface which is like the worst of all worlds: text interface without the benefit of the shell, zero accessibility.
CLI refers more to non-interactive programs used through a shell, programs like grep or or indeed the `claude` program in non-interactive modes. TUIs (text user interfaces) refers to interactive programs implemented in a terminal interface, what you call ncurses interfaces (but usually aren't implemented using ncurses these days.) They're GUIs in text, so TUIs.
Anyway, their decision to implement a TUI was definitely not done out of laziness nor even pragmatism. It was a fashion choice. A deliberate choice to put their product in the same vibes-space as console jockey hotshot unix pros who spit out arcane one liners to get shit done. They very easily could have asked claude to write itself a proper GUI interface which completely avoids all the pitfalls of TUIs and simplifies a lot of things they went out of their way to make work in a TUI. Support for drag-and-drop for instance, isn't something you'll find in many TUIs but they have it. They put care into making this TUI, the problem is that TUIs are kind of shit, and they certainly know that. They did it this way anyway effectively for marketting reasons.
The actual JS code is in the same ballpark as nodejs. They get fast by specializing to each platform's fastest APIs instead of using generic ones, reimplementing JS libraries in Zig (for example npm or jest) and using faster libraries (for example they use the oniguruma regex engine). Also you don't need an extra transpiling step when using TypeScript.
I am impressed by the achievements of the Zig team. I use the ghostty terminal emulator regularly -- it is built in Zig and it is super stable. It is a fantastic piece of software.
This makes me feel that the underlying technology behind Zig is solid.
But I prefer Rust over Zig. The main difference is Rust chooses a "closed world" model while Zig chooses an "open world" model: in Rust, you must explicitly implement a trait while in Zig as long as the shape fits, or the `.` on a structure member exists (for whichever type you pass in), it will work (I don't use Zig so pardon hand wavy description).
This gives Zig very powerful meta programming abilities but is a pain because you don't know what kind of type "shapes" will be used in a particular piece of code. Zig is similar to C++ templates in some respects.
This has a ripple effect everywhere. Rust generated documentation is very rich and explicit about what functions a structure supports (as each trait is explicitly enrolled and implemented). In Zig the dynamic nature of the code becomes a problem with autocomplete, documentation, LSP support, ...
> But I prefer Rust over Zig. The main difference is Rust chooses a "closed world" model while Zig chooses an "open world" model: in Rust, you must explicitly implement a trait while in Zig as long as the shape fits, or the `.` on a structure member exists (for whichever type you pass in), it will work (I don't use Zig so pardon hand wavy description).
Do you happen to have a more specific example by any chance? I’d be interested in what this looks like in practice, because what you described sounds a bit like Go interfaces and from my understanding of Zig, there’s no direct equivalent to it, other than variations of fieldParentPtr.
They are referring to `anytype`, which is a comptime construct telling the compiler that the parameter can be of any type and as long as the code compiles with the given value, it's good.
It's an extremely useful thing, but unconstrained, it's essentially duck typing during compile time. People has been wanting some kind of trait/interface support to constrain it, but it's unlikely to happen.
Conceptually it's quite similar to how C++ templates work (not including C++20 concepts, which is the kind of constraining you're talking about).
I quite like it when writing C++ code. Makes it dead easy to write code like `min` that works for any type in a generic way. It is, however, arguably the main culprit behind C++s terrible compiler-errors, because you'll have standard library functions which have like a stack of fifteen generic calls, and it fails really deeply on some obscure inner thing which has some kind of type requirement, and it's really hard to trace back what you actually did wrong.
In my (quite limited) experience, Zig largely avoids this by having a MUCH simpler type system than C++, and the standard library written by a sane person. Zig seems "best of both worlds" in this regard.
The kernel32 -> Ntdll changes are the most interesting thing to me here. A lot of the rationale is applicable also to the linux userspace APIs, especially errors in return at the kernel-userspace boundary vs GetLastError/errno in kernel32/libc. Of course on linux the "problem" is that libc and the kernel API are intimately intertwined and the former mandates using errno. I wonder how the pattern made its way into windows as well. That environment has never seemed to me to promote using libc.
The errno/GetLastError() pattern is a remnant from a time before threads were a thing. You could have multiple processes, but they were largely scheduled collaboratively (rather than preemptively).
In that world, things like global variables are perfectly fine. But then we got first preemptive scheduling and threads, then actual multicore CPUs, so global variables became really dangerous. Thread locals are the escape hatch that carried these patterns into the 21st century, for better or worse.
Indeed, and this change of philosophy shows up in the pthread (POSIX threads) API, which returns error values directly (as a negative integer) instead of setting the errno variable.
It's not so much a workaround as it is an elegance in design. In Zig, when you @import a file, that file is converted to a struct with comptime fields for all of the public members. Similarly, a "namespace" in Zig is just a nested struct with more fields. Usually it's just another import of something else.
N.B.: Coffee hasn't reached my bloodstream yet; accuracy not guaranteed.
files aren't converted to structs on import, they _are_ structs (well, their contents are the inside of a struct declaration). also, public members don't become comptime fields? file structs are basically left as-is on import, nearly like you copy&pasted the file contents into a struct declaration
One thing that tends to be overlooked when discussing changes is the ecosystem effect of frequent changes.
A language that breaks frequently doesn't just impose upgrade work on apps, but also discourages the creation of long-lived libraries and tools. Anything that sits between the language and the user (linters, bindings, frameworks, teaching material, tutorials etc) has to to some degree "chase the language"
This means that the ecosystem will skew toward very actively maintained libraries and away from "write once then leave it alone" libs. And this the trade-off is reasonable during early language design, but it's worth acknowledging that it has real consequences for ecosystem growth.
One should note that other newer languages have put significant effort into minimizing this churn, precisely to allow the latter type of ecosystem to also form. So it's kind of an experiment, and it will be interesting to see which approach ends up producing the larger ecosystem over time.
An example for this is the Blender addon ecosystem. Blender moves very fast, breaking API changes every few versions. Now I am not an addon developer myself, but from github issues I follow, changes are fairly often trivial to do.
Yet, someone has to do them. Ideally it is the creator of the addon, sometimes it's the users who do it, when the addon is not maintained anymore (in case of trivial changes).
It kinda works that way, but it also is some kind of gamble for the user. When you see a new addon (and a new addon developer), you can't know if they gonna stick to it or not.
If you have to pay for the addon, it's more likely they maintain it, of course. But also not a guarantee.
Zig's worth it though. I don't care for libraries that aren't maintained anyway. If they don't maintain it, it's just bad anyway. Why do you always nag about Zig. Stop shilling your C3 here.
This kind of thought is popular in the web world where browsers get an update every 3 days and you don't control the hosting services, so constant maintenance is unavoidable.
But in the world of desktop development it's possible for a library to be "done", having a 100% stable codebase going forward and requiring no maintenance. And it's not bad, it's actually good.
Requiring every dependency to be constantly maintained is a massive drain on productivity.
> Many projects including Chromium, boringssl, Firefox, and Rust call SystemFunction036 from advapi32.dll because it worked on versions older than Windows 8.
That's not true. They use ProcessPrng since versions earlier than 10 are no longer supported (well, rust also has a windows 7 target but that couldn't use ProcessPrng anyway since it wasn't available). The issue they linked is from a decade ago. E.g. here's Chromium: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/dc7016d1ef67e3e128...
> If [ProcessPrng] fails it returns NO_MEMORY in a BOOL (documented behavior is to never fail, and always return TRUE).
From Windows 10 onward ProcessPrng will never fail. There's a whitepaper that gives the justification for this (https://aka.ms/win10rng):
> We also have the property that a request for random bytes never fails. In the past our
RNG functions could return an error code. We have observed that there are many callers
that never check for the error code, even if they are generating cryptographic key
material. This can lead to serious security vulnerabilities if an attacker manages to create
a situation in which the RNG infrastructure returns an error. For that reason, the Win10
RNG infrastructure will never return an error code and always produce high-quality
random bytes for every request...
> For each user-mode process, we have a (buffered) base PRNG maintained by
BCryptPrimitives.dll. When this DLL loads it requests a random seed from kernel mode
(where it is produced by the per-CPU states) and seeds the process base PRNG. If this
were to fail, BCryptPrimitive.dll fails to load, which in most cases causes the process to
terminate. This behavior ensures that we never have to return an error code from the
RNG system.
Congratulations to the dev, a 30,000 line PR for a language compiler (and a very much non-trivial compiler) is a feat to be proud of. But a change of this magnitude is a serious bit of development and gave me pause.
I understand both of the following:
1. Language development is a tricky subject, in general, but especially for those languages looking for wide adoption or hoping for ‘generational’ (program life span being measured in multiple decades) usage in infrastructure, etc.
2) Zig is a young-ish language, not at 1.0, and explicitly evolving as of the posting of TFA
With those points as caveats, I find the casualness of the following (from the codeburg post linked on the devlog) surprising:
‘’’This branch changes the semantics of "uninstantiable" types (things like noreturn, that is, types which contain no values). I wasn't originally planning to do this here, but matching the semantics of master was pretty difficult because the existing semantics don't make much sense.’’’
I don’t know Zig’s particular strategy and terminology for language and compiler development, but I would assume the usage of ‘branch’ here implies this is not a change fully/formally adopted by the language but more a fully implemented proposal. Even if it is just a proposal for change, the large scale of the rewrite and clear implication that the author expects it to be well received strikes me as uncommon confidence. Changing the semantics of a language with any production use is nearly definitionally MAJOR, to just blithely state your PR changes semantics and proceed with no deep discussion (which could have previously happened, IDK) or serious justification or statements concerning the limited effect of those changes is not something I have experienced watching the evolution (or de-evolution) of other less ‘serious’ languages.
Is this a “this dev” thing, a Zig thing, or am just out of touch with modern language (or even larger scale development) projects?
Also, not particularly important or really significant to the overall thrust of TFA, but the author uses the phrase “modern Zig”, which given Zig’s age and seeming rate of change currently struck me as a very funny turn of phrase.
When someone's communication is casual and informal, without any context, you really can't distinguish between:
* The author is being flippant and not taking the situation seriously enough.
* The author is presuming a high-trust audience that knows that they have done all the due diligence and don't have to restate all of that.
In this case, it's a devlog (i.e. not a "marketing post") for a language that isn't at 1.0 yet. A certain amount of "if you're here, you probably have some background" is probably reasonable.
The post does link directly to the PR and the PR has a lot more context that clearly conveys the author knows what they are doing.
It is weird reading about (minor) breaking language changes sort of mentioned in passing. We're used to languages being extremely stable. But Zig isn't 1.0 yet. Andrew and friends certainly take user stability seriously, but you signed up for a certain amount of breakage if you pick the language today.
As someone who maintains a post-1.0 language, there really is a lot of value in breaking changes like this. It's good to fix things while your userbase is small. It's maddening to have to live with obvious warts in the language simply because the userbase got too big for you to feasibly fix it, even when all the users wish you could fix it too. (Witness: The broken precedence of bitwise operators in C.)
It's better for all future users to get the language as clean and solid as you can while it's still malleable.
mlugg is one of the core contributors of Zig, and is a member of the Zig foundation iirc. They've been wanting to work on dependency resolution for a while now, so I'm really glad they're cleaning this up (I've been bitten before by unclear circular dependency errors). There's not a formal language spec yet, since it's moving pretty fast, but tbh I don't see the need for a standard, since that's not one of their goals currently.
> A (fairly uncontroversial) subset of this behavior was implemented in [the changeset we are discussing]. I'll close this for now, though I'll probably end up revisiting these semantics more precisely at some point, in which case I'll open a new issue on Codeberg.
I don't know how evident this is to the casual HN reader, but to me this changeset very obviously moves Zig the language from experimental territory a large degree towards being formally specified, because it makes type resolution a Directed Acyclic Graph. Just look at how many bugs it resolved to get a feel for it. This changeset alone will make the next release of the compiler significantly more robust.
Now, I like talking about its design and development, but all that being said, Zig project does not aim for full transparency. It says right there in the README:
> Zig is Free and Open Source Software. We welcome bug reports and patches from everyone. However, keep in mind that Zig governance is BDFN (Benevolent Dictator For Now) which means that Andrew Kelley has final say on the design and implementation of everything.
It's up to you to decide whether the language and project are in trustworthy hands. I can tell you this much: we (the dev team) have a strong vision and we care deeply about the project, both to fulfill our own dreams as well as those of our esteemed users whom we serve[1]. Furthermore, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit we have no motive to enshittify.
Where does the name "zero type" come from? In type theory this is called an "empty" type because the set of values of this type is empty and I couldn't find (though I have no idea where to start) mention of it as a "zero" type.
This stuff is foundational and so it's certainly a priority to get it right (which C++ didn't and will be paying for until it finally collapses under its own weight) but it's easier to follow as an outsider when people use conventional terminology.
The ZSTs are unit types. They have one value, which we usually write as just the type name, so e.g.
struct Goose;
let x = Goose; // The variable x has type Goose, but also value Goose, the only value of that type
The choice to underscore that Rust's unit types have size zero is to contrast with languages like C or C++ where these types, which don't need representing, must nevertheless take up a whole byte of storage and it's just wasted.
But what we're talking about here are empty types. In Rust we'd write this:
enum Donkey {}
// We can't make any variables with the Donkey type, because there are no values of this type and a variable needs a value
No, that’s a different thing. “noreturn” is like Rust’s “never” type (spelled as an exclamation mark, !). Also known as an “uninhabited type” in programming language theory.
Note that Rust's ! isn't stabilized, however you can (in stable Rust, today) make your own empty/ uninhabited types, yours just isn't "the" canonical empty type for the language, and so the type arithmetic won't necessarily see that it's the same thing in some cases if that matters.
Rust's core::convert::Infallible is such a type, representing in that case the error type for conversions which have no errors. For example, we can try to convert most numeric types into a 16-bit unsigned type, and obviously most of them can fail because your value was too big or negative or whatever. u16 however obviously never fails, the conversion is a no-op, nevertheless it would be stupid if we can't write generic code to convert it - so of course we can, and if we wrote generic error handling code, that code is dead for the u16 case, we can't fail, the use of empty types here justifies the compiler saying OK, that code is dead, don't emit it. Likewise converting u8 to u16 can't fail - although it's slightly more than a no-op in some sense - and so again the error handling is dead code.
I see. I can not give more insightful answer here then. From personal experience, I've noticed with 0.16 with the std.Io async stuff that you cannot do:
io.concurrent(foo, .{});
where foo's return type is `error{foobar}!noreturn`, because the compiler crashes when it tries to use that type as a std.Io.Future(T)'s struct field. Might be related or not.
Thanks for the reply Andrew, I certainly did not mean to imply any issues with trustworthiness for Zig users or prospective adopters. Also, I absolutely did not intend to imply any negatives toward Zog’s evolution or this particular development on the compiler’s internals.
I enjoy all of the process and implementation content, i.e. videos, podcast, and blogs that yourself and contributors have provided through various platforms over the years. I made a comment from a relatively u informed place and it seems to have been taken as a negative remark on Zig or the language and compiler’s development. Apologies if it was seen that way yourself or other contributors.
As for Matthew, the work both planning and implementing these changes was clearly a large undertaking and I certainly applaud that and hope no one thought otherwise.
I don't use Zig (is not a language for me), but I like to read/watch about it, when you or others talk about the language design and the reasons behind the changes.
They literally ended the comment by asking. I don't get why you're criticizing them for providing context that they're not an expert. You're literally distracting from the comment you're telling them has useful information on it, but in a weirdly aggressive way.
Yes, seems clear, right? It was an extremely hostile pompous criticism of something he didn't understand at all, and the questions were rhetorical, not asked sincerely or in good faith:
> Is this a “this dev” thing, a Zig thing, or am just out of touch with modern language (or even larger scale development) projects?
No, none of those, it's him making numerous rash assumptions.
But my snarky post was probably poor judgment on my part. I won't be commenting further.
Just thinking out loud here, perhaps behavior like this has been more normalized because of the total shitshow that C is. Which followed all these supposedly correct rules.
One thing I’ve noticed reading Zig discussions is that many semantics seem simple on their own but interactions can be subtle – like in the behavior fixed here.
I wonder if this ends up similar to C++ template rules where the surface looks small but the edge cases accumulate over time.
What makes zig special as a language? I have the impression that it has quite a large fan base here on HN but don't really hear any talks about it anywhere else.
Disclaimer: I don't really use Zig (primarily a Rust dev) but I do think it's quite cool.
If you're willing to dive right into it, I'd first read a bit about the comptime system [0] then have a go at reading the source for `MultiArrayList` [1], a container which internally stores elements in SoA format.
I can share mine. I am not sure if this connects with you because maybe you are more experienced.
I'm DevOps writing boring Python microservices for €. I have no CS background and never did systems programming. However, writing Python always bothered me because there are so many layers between you and what's happening on the metal. For me, Django is the peak example of this, to me it feels almost like doing no code. It makes me very uncomfortable writing it.
Then I heard about this new programming language Zig on YouTube and I just gave it a try. After using it for a few months, I really like it. I guess mostly because it is so explicit.
It is almost like the language encourages you to think in terms of system design. Zig offers a lot of freedom so you can design the perfect tool for your problem. And somehow, it feels very effective for it. I think it is a blessing that there are few third party libraries for the same reason.
For example. I am working on a tool to parse CIM (some XML standard). If I had to use Python for this, my solution would probably use the most popular xml parsing library and then go from there. Yawn.
Instead, with Zig I started to think with a very fresh mind about the problem. I started thinking more from the first principles of the problem. And I got very excited again about programming. During my swimming practice or biking, I kept thinking about the design and how I can make it simpler and improving it by simply not doing certain busy work. I can't fully explain it. But the language gets you in that mindset.
Maybe other system languages also offer this experience, Zig (marketing?) just happened to cross my paths at the right moment.
I'm sure it's not what you meant, but the argument "it makes me slower at my job and deliver less stable solutions, but I feel cool doing it" is not exactly a compelling endorsement.
I can't see anything in OP's post where he says any of that. Everything you said seems like an incredibly ungenerous reading of what he wrote.
Zig is a systems programming language. Moving from Python to Zig is a step down the tech stack, which brings with it exposure to underlying concepts and limitations that matter when writing any software, and which is especially valuable for a self-taught dev.
Where did he say he did it in work hours? Or that he did it instead of doing his job?
He used the word "yawn" to describe using a popular library without understanding the underlying architecture, not in reference to doing his job.
Honestly, I can't even see a tenuous connection between what you're claiming and what was said in the post. The man is expressing joy about learning new things, and you're... upset about this? For some reason? Weird.
It’s good to see that this is finally addressed. It’s been a well known broken part of the language semantics for years.
There are similar hidden quirks in the language that will need to be addressed at some point, such as integer promotion semantics.
To address the question about stability: the Zig community are already used to Zig breaking between 0.x versions. Unlike competitors such as Odin or my own C3, there is no expectation that Zig is trying to minimize upgrading problems.
This is a cultural thing, it would be no real problem to be clear about deprecations, but in the Zig community it’s simply not valued. In fact it’s a source of pride to be able to adapt as fast as possible to the new changes.
I like to talk about expectation management, and this is a great example of it.
In discussions, it is often falsely argued that ”Zig is not 1.0 so breaks are expected” in order to motivate the frequent breaks. However, there are degrees to how you handle breaks, and Zig is clearly in the ”we don’t care to reduce the work”-camp.
If someone is trying to get a more objective look at the Zig upgrade path, then it’s worth keeping in mind that the tradition in Zig is to offload all the work on the user.
The argument, which is frequently voiced, is that ”breaking things will make the language get better and so it’s good that there are language breaks”
It is certainly true that breaking changes are needed, but most people outside of the Zig community would expect it to be done with more care (deprecation paths etc)
Secondly, it should perhaps be a concern for Zig, now at 10 years old, to still produce solidly breaking code every half year.
10 years is the common point where languages go 1.0. However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
This means that in the future, projects using Zig can still expect any libraries and applications to bitrot quickly if they are not constantly maintained.
Putting this in contrast with Odin (9 years old) which is essentially 1.0 already and has been stable for several years.
Maybe this also explains the difference in actual output. For example the number of games I know of written in Odin is somewhere between 5 to 10 times as many as Zig games. Now weighing in that Zig has maybe 5 or 10 times as many users, it means Odin users are somewhere between 20-100 times as likely to have written a playable game.
There are several explanations as to why this is: we could discuss whether the availability of SDL, Raylib etc is easier on Odin (then why is Zig less friendly?), maybe more Odin has better programmers (then why do better programmers choose Odin over Zig), maybe it’s just easier to write resource intensive applications with Odin than Zig (then what do we make of Zig’s claim of optimality?)
If we look past the excuses made for Zig (”it’s easy to fix breaks” ”it’s not 1.0”) and the hype (”Zig is much safer than C” ”Zig makes me so productive”) and compare with Odin in actual productivity, stability and compilation speed (neither C3 nor Odin requires 100s of GB of cache to compile in less than a second using LLVM) then Zig is not looking particularly good.
Even things like build.zig, often touted as a great thing, is making it really hard for a Zig beginner (”to build your first Hello World, first understand this build script in non-trivial Zig”). Then for IDEs, suddenly something like just reading the configuration of what is going to be used for building is hidden behind an opaque Zig script. These trade-offs are rarely talked about, as both criticism and hype is usually based on surface rather than depth.
Well, that’s long enough of a comment.
To round it off I’d like to end on a positive note: I find the Zig community nice and welcoming. So if you’re trying Zig out (and better do that, don’t let others’ opinions - including mine - prevent you from trying things out) do so.
If you want to evaluate Zig against competitors, I’d recommend comparing it to D, Odin, Jai and C3.
it seems to me like the acceptance of breaking changes by the Zig community is more coming from "it's worth it to get a nice, polished language" than some "source of pride" which i personally have not seen in my time in a/the Zig discord server.
what is the problem with zig being developed for 10+ years? if people want stable languages there are stable languages to be used. if a language like zig is not achievable in less than 10 years, should it just not be developed from the start?
i think your problems with build.zig are overstated. where do you see someone saying "to build your first Hello World, first understand this build script in non-trivial Zig"? you can literally just do `zig run file.zig`, so if someone is advocating for that then i think many would agree they are teaching the wrong way. i wonder if you saw an example project with a build script that was intended to show the power and possibilities of Zig rather than to be a starter guide.
> Secondly, it should perhaps be a concern for Zig, now at 10 years old, to still produce solidly breaking code every half year.
Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
> Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
Yes, I understand that is the opinion in the Zig community. As an outsider, it seems odd to me to pick a language that I constantly need to maintain.
>> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
> Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
You misread that one. I was talking about the odds of seeing a 1.0 version of Zig soon.
> I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. This is part of the protectiveness from the Zig community that prompted me to write in the first place.
WITHIN the Zig community it is deemed acceptable for Zig upgrades to break code. Consequently it becomes simple survivor bias that people who use Zig for larger projects don't think that this is a major concern BECAUSE IF THEY FELT IT WAS A CONCERN THEY WOULD NOT USE ZIG.
Whether programmers at large feel that this is a problem is an unknown still, since Zig has not yet reached to point of general adoption (when people use Zig because they have to, rather than because they want to).
However, it is INCORRECT to state that just because a language is not yet 1.0 it needs to break older code aggressively without deprecation paths. As an example, Odin removed the old `os` module and replaced it with the new "os2". This break was announced half a year in advance and lots of thought was put into reducing work for developers: https://odin-lang.org/news/moving-towards-a-new-core-os/
In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
I wanted to highlight how these are quite different approaches. For established languages, this is of course even more rigorous, but neither C3 nor Odin are 1.0, and still see this as valuable and their communities then end up expecting it.
So please understand that when you say "it's never a main[sic] concern", this is simple survivor bias.
> In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
zig release happens once a year, either a breaking change. I don't really get how you tried defended yourself, do you think it's any "different"?
Zig is great. If frequent updates are the price for that, so be it.
Honestly it’s kind of narrow-minded not to appreciate how different its approach to low-level programming is. You either see it or you don’t.
C3 is basically just C with a few extra bells and whistles. Still the same old C. Why would I use that when Zig exists? Actually never mind, don’t bother answering.
And the doomer posts are so predictable. That’s usually when you know Zig is doing something right.
A pretty obvious explanation as to why Odin has more games written in it is that the language is somewhat explicitly marketed towards that use-case, even going as far to have a vendor library collection that includes many popular game dev libraries.
I am using games, because they pop up more often (gamejams etc), but we can see the same if we'd look at utility apps. Do you want to broaden that to "Odin is more explicitly marked towards writing applications", but if so what would that say of Zig?
I would begin by questioning the premise. Do you have actual numbers on this? I’m not really aware of any widely adopted software that’s written in Odin. Can name multiple in the case of Zig
Hi, author of this devlog here! Not to dismiss concerns about breaking language changes, but there seems to be a bit of a misconception here that this compiler change was highly breaking and will require significant effort from Zig users to update for. Perhaps I unintentionally gave that impression in the devlog or the PR writeup, apologies if so---but it's not the case! Although there were breaking changes in this patch, they were quite minor: most users are unlikely to hit them, and if they do then they're straightforward to deal with.
For a concrete example, while testing this branch, I tried building ZLS (https://github.com/zigtools/zls/). To do that, the only change I had to make was changing `.{}` to `.empty` in a couple of its dependencies (i.e. not even in ZLS itself!). This was needed because I removed some default values from `std.ArrayList` (so the change was in standard library code rather than the language). Those default values had actually already been deprecated (with intent to remove) for around a year, so this wasn't exactly a new change either.
As another example, Andrew has updated Awebo (https://codeberg.org/awebo-chat/awebo), a text and voice chat application, to the new version of Zig. Across Awebo's entire dependency tree (which includes various packages for graphics, audio, and probably some other stuff), the full set of necessary changes was:
* Same as above, change `.{}` to `.empty` in a few places, due to removal of deprecated defaults
* Add one extra `comptime` annotation to logic which was constructing an array at comptime
* Append `orelse @alignOf(T)` onto an expression to deal with a newly-possible `null` case
These are all trivial fixes which Zig developers would be able to do pretty much on autopilot upon seeing the compile errors.
So, while there were a handful of small breaking changes, they don't seem to me like a particularly big deal (for a language where some level of breakage is still allowed). The main thing this PR achieved was instead a combination of bugfixes, and enhancements to existing features (particularly incremental compilation).
I made one of the comments that seems to be perceived a critical of the changes (I made a statement about the seemingly brief paragraph on changing semantics). As I replied to Andrew, I will tell you: the PR had a large amount of planning and implementation that seems of great quality. I certainly did not intend to discredit you or the obviously large amount of work you have done previously or on the change. I guess that will teach me to post without even more caveats.
Oh, no problem at all & no shade of any kind intended! I just wanted to clarify this point since it seems like a good few people got that misconception. That doesn't mean you can't discuss breakage anyway, or ask questions of the development / language design process :)
Your comment was reasonable, I don't know why it got downvoted that hard.
I am going to ask a question that is is definitely not the place for, but I am not involved with Zig in any way and am curious, so I hope you'll indulge me.
I noticed the following comment was added to lib/std/multi_array_list.zig [0] with this change:
How could relying on `@alignOf(T)` in the definition of `MultiArrayList(T)` cause a loop? Even with `T` itself being a MultiArrayList, surely that is a fully distinct, monomorphized type? I expect I am missing something obvious.[0]: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/pulls/31403/files#diff-a6fc...
I had to search for this, but managed to find the relevant mlugg@ comment[0] on the ZSF zulip:
> i had to change the bytes field from [*]align(@alignOf(T)) u8 to just [*]u8 (and cast the alignment back in the like one place that field is accessed). this wasn't necessary for MultiArrayList in and of itself, but it was necessary for embedding a MultiArrayList(T) inside of T without a dependency loop, like
[0]: https://zsf.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/454360-compiler/to...Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for pulling this up!
He went into it a bit more over on Ziggit today too. I only noticed it way after I went digging: https://ziggit.dev/t/devlog-type-resolution-redesign-with-la...
I would really like to hear from people using Zig in production/semi-serious applications; where software stability is important.
How's your experience with the constantly changing language? How're your update/rewrite cycles looking like? Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
I know Bun's using zig to a degree of success, was wondering how the rest were doing.
I maintain a ~250K LoC Zig compiler code base [0]. We've been through several breaking Zig releases (although the code base was much smaller for most of that time; Writergate is the main one we've had to deal with since the code base crossed the 100K LoC mark).
The language and stdlib changing hasn't been a major pain point in at least a year or two. There was some upgrade a couple of years ago that took us awhile to land (I think it might have been 0.12 -> 0.13 but I could be misremembering the exact version) but it's been smooth sailing for a long time now.
These days I'd put breaking releases in the "minor nuisance" category, and when people ask what I've liked and disliked about using Zig I rarely even remember to bring it up.
[0]: https://github.com/roc-lang/roc
At this point do you believe porting the codebase to Zig was the right decision? Do you have any regrets?
Also, I'm excited about trying out your language even moreso than Zig. :)
What's the main value proposition of roc? I found interesting tags (like symbols in mathematica) and tags with payloads (like python namedtuple or dataclasses). I haven't seen this elsewhere. Otherwise seems quite typical (Pattern matching is quite common, for example).
Example programs that you couldn't easily express in other languages?
Are you aware that your Github README doesn't actually tell us anything about Roc is or why we might be interested?
This might be on purpose given the first words are "Work in progress" and "not ready for release", but linking as above does lose some value.
Instead of being rude, consider checking Roc's website: https://roc-lang.org/
He wasn't pitching the language directly, but linking to the codebase as that was what was relevant to the comment he was replying to.
If I missed with tone, that's on me. I was going for "helpful constructive feedback".
I've worked on two "production" zig codebases: tigerbeetle [0] and sig [1].
These larger zig projects will stick to a tagged release (which doesn't change), and upgrade to newly tagged releases, usually a few days or months after they come out. The upgrade itself takes like a week, depending on the amount of changes to be done. These projects also tend to not use other zig dependencies.
[0]: https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle/pulls?q=is%3Apr+a...
[1]: https://github.com/Syndica/sig/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Akpro...
I really wanted to deep dive into zig but I'm into rust now kinda late as I'm really just started like 2024.
Have you tried rust? how does it compared to zig?
* just asking
Two different philosophical approaches with Zig and Rust.
- 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.
> However we value explicitness and allow the developer to do anything they need to do*
* except for having unused variables. Those are so dangerous the compiler will refuse the code every time.
They are indeed dangerous, and I think this is a pretty good example of why.
https://andrewkelley.me/post/openzfs-bug-ported-zig.html
don't know if it's still on the table, but Andrew has hinted that the unused variables error may in the future still produce an executable artefact but return an nonzero return code for the compiler. And truly fatal errors would STILL produce an executable artefact too, just one that prints "sorry this compilation had a fatal error" to stdout.
It’s hard to say that one needs unused variables.
If I comment out sections of code while debugging or iterating I don't want a compile error for some unused variable or argument. Warning. fine, but this happens to me so frequently that the idea of unused variables being an error is insane to me.
It is insane and you are completely right. This has been a part of programming for over 50 years. Unfortunately you aren't going to get anywhere with zig zealots, they just get mad when confronted with things like this that have no justification, but they don't want to admit it's a mistake.
But even the solutions would be so trivial - have a separate 'prod' compiler flag. With that, make these errors, without make these warnings.
Problem solved, everyone happy.
i think the plan is to make no distinction between error and warning, but have trivial errors still build. that said i wouldn't be surprised if they push that to the end because it seems like a great ultrafilter for keeping annoying people out so they don't try to influence the language.
You are right of course, the solution is trivial.
They also made a carriage return crash the compiler so it wouldn't work with any default text files on windows, then they blamed the users for using windows (and their windows version of the compiler!).
It's not exactly logic land, there is a lot of dogma and ideology instead of pragmatism.
Some people would even reply how they were glad it made life difficult for windows users. I don't think they had an answer for why there was a windows version in the first place.
I'm not sure why you shouldn't make your compiler accept CRs (weird design decision), but fixing it on the user-side isn't exactly hard either. I don't know an editor that doesn't have an option for using LF vs CRLF.
The unused variable warning is legitimately really annoying though and has me inserting `_ = x;` all over the place and then forgetting to delete it, which is imo way worse than just... having it be a warning.
I don't know an editor that doesn't have an option for using LF vs CRLF.
And I don't know any other languages that don't parse a carriage return.
The point is that it was intentionally done to antagonize windows even though they put out a windows version. Some people defend this by saying that it's easy to turn off, some people defend it by saying windows users should be antagonized.
No zig people ever said this was a mistake, it was all intentional.
I'm never going to put up with behavior like that with the people making tools actively working against me.
> And I don't know any other languages that don't parse a carriage return.
fair enough.
Same for kernel drivers
Rust is a Bugatti Veyron, Zig is a McLaren F1.
as few footguns as possible
There are no destructors so all the memory ownership footguns are still there.
sure, but when I've written zig this has never been an issue for me. `defer` makes memory management really easy.
If you want to auto-generate destructors, zig has really good comptime features that can let you do that.
defer is still something you have to consciously put in every time so it destroys the value semantics that C++ has, which is the important part. You don't have to "just write defer after a string", you can just use a string.
The 'not a problem for me' is what people would say about manual memory in C too. Defer is better but it isn't as good as what is already in use.
That's disingenous, Rust tries to minimize errors, first at compile time then at runtime, even if it at some discomfort of to programer.
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.
Yes, I've written a few unsafe-focused crates [0], some of which have been modified & merged into the stdlib [1] [2] exposing them to the fringe edge-cases of Rust like strict provenance.
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...
Zig is a modern C,
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.
As someone who never liked writing anything C++ since 2000+ (did like it before) I cannot agree with this. C++ and Rust are not comparable in this sense at all.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
See my other comment[1]
It replaces C++ for me, so I would say it's "a C++"
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334275
And in a world of only you your claim is true.
I think the comparison is fair, strictly in the sense that both Rust and C++ are designed around extensible programming via a sort of subtyping (C++ classes, Rust traits), and similar resource management patterns (ownership, RAII), where Zig and C do not have anything comparable.
My take, unfortunately, is that Zig might be a more modern C but that gives us little we don’t already have.
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.
Zig gives things we really dont have yet: C + generics + good const eval + good build system + easy cross compilation + modern niceties (optionals, errors, sum types, slices, vectors, arbitrary bit packing, expression freedom).
Are there any other languages that provide this? Would genuinely consider the switch for some stuff if so.
+1 The zig toolchain is the state of the art currently.
It is kind of interesting that the Linux kernel is slowly adopting Rust, whereas Zig seems like it would be a more natural fit?
I know, timelines not matching up, etc.
Definitely not. Rust gives you a tangible benefit in terms of correctness. It's such a valuable benefit that it outweighs the burden of incorporating a new language in the kernel, with all that comes with it.
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.
actually that's not true at all. Zig offers you some more safety than C. And it also affords you a compiler architecture and stdlib that is so well designed you could probably bolt on memory safety relatively easily as a 3rd party static checker
https://github.com/ityonemo/clr
"More safety than C" is an incredibly low bar. These are hygiene features, which is great, but Rust offers a paradigm shift. It's an entirely different ballpark.
negative. For example bounds checking is turned on by default in Zig, which prevents classes of overflow safety errors.
I don't think you've necessarily understood the scope and impact of the borrow checker. Bounds checking is just a sane default (hygiene), not a game changer.
I mean, I'm the author of this?
https://github.com/ityonemo/clr
so yes, I understand that it's important. It doesn't need to be in the compiler though? I think it's likely the case that you also don't need to have annotations littering the language.
I wish you good luck! Successive attempts to achieve similar levels of analysis without annotations have failed in the C++ space, but I look forward to reading your results.
yeah afaik you cant easily intercept c++ at a meaningful IR in the same way as you can zig. Zig's AIR is almost perfect for this kind of thing.
Memory safety by default in kernel sounds like a good idea :). However I don't think that C is being _replaced_ by Rust code, it's rather that more independent parts that don't need to deeply integrate with the existing C constructs can be written in a memory safe language, and IMO that's a fine tradeoff
I believe Rust is mainly being used for driver development, which seems a great fit (there's so many people of different skill levels who write Linux drivers, so this should help avoid bad driver code being exploited). It may also end up in the core systems, but it also might not fit there as well.
And “if you enjoy C++/if you enjoy C” are gross oversimplifications.
It is not about timelines. Linux Torvalds doesn't spend nights reading bunch of books with crabs on their covers rewriting random bits and pieces of the kernel in Rust. It is basically a dedicated group of people sponsored by megacorps doing the heavy lifting. If megacorps wanted Zig we could have had it in the kernel instead (Linux might have rejected it though, not sure what he thinks of it).
And Zig isn't stable yet
Comparing Rust to C++ feels strange to me.
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.
I wrote lots of C++ before learning Rust, and I enjoyed it. Since learning Rust, I write no more C++. I found no place in which C++ is a better fit than Rust, and so it's my "new C++".
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.
> found no place in which C++ is a better fit than Rust, and so it's my "new C++".
Writing the compiler toolchains that Rust depends on, industry standards like CUDA, SYSCL, Metal, Unreal or the VFX Reference Platform.
There are places a language could be a better fit, but which haven't adopted it. E.g. most languages over typescript on the backend, most systems programming languages over Java for games.
The fallacy is to discuss programming languages in isolation without taking the whole ecosystem into consideration.
Rust uses LLVM because it's pretty great, not because you couldn't implement LLVM in Rust.
Maybe cranelift will eventually surpass LLVM, but there isn't currently much reason to push for that.
If anything, making cranelift an LLVM replacement would likely go counter to its stated goals of being a simple and fast code generator.
Thus Rust cannot really replace C++ when its reference toolchain depends on it.
If you define success for Rust as "everything is written in Rust", then Rust will never be successful. The project also doesn't pursue success in those terms, so it is like complaining about how bad a salmon is at climbing trees.
That is however how the Rust Evangelism Strike Force does it all the time, hence these kind of remarks I tend to do.
C++ is good for some things regardless of its warts due to ecosystem, and Rust is better in some other ones, like being much safer by default.
Both will have to coexist in decades to come, but we have this culture that doesn't accept matches that end in a draw, it is all about being in the right tribe.
So... Like, what? Do you agree that there is no technical reason for LLVM to be written in C++ over Rust?
Have you considered that you perhaps do more damage to the conversation by having it with this hypothetical strike force instead of the people that are actually involved in the conversation? Whose feelings are you trying to protect? What hypocrisy are you trying to expose? Is the strike force with us in the room right now?
I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.
And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
Or ignoring that for the time being NVidia, Intel, AMD, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, CERN, Argonne National Laboratory and similar, hardly bother with Rust based software for what they do day to day.
They have employees on WG14, WG21, contribute to GCC/clang upstream, and so far have shown no interest in having Rust around on their SDKs or research papers.
> I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.
Everybody agrees with that, though? Including the people writing rustc.
There's a space for a different thing that does codegen differently (e.g. Cranelift), but that's neither here nor there.
> And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
There's a huge difference between "Rust depends on LLVM because you couldn't write LLVM in Rust [so we still need C++]" and then "Rust depends on LLVM because LLVM is pretty good". The former is false, the latter is true. Rust is perfectly suited for writing LLVM's eventual replacement, but that's a massive undertaking with very little real value right now.
Rust is young and arguably incomplete for certain use cases, and it'll take a while to mature enough too meet all use cases of C++, but that will happen long before very large institutions are also able to migrate their very large C++ code bases and expertise. This is a multi-decade process.
> Rust is close to C++ in that it is a systems language that allows a reasonable level of zero-cost abstractions.
That's like saying php is close to haskell because they both have garbage collection.
I found swift way more enjoyable than rust as a C++ alternative. It even has first class-ish interop now.
Seriously asking, where Go sits in this categorization?
Nowhere, or wherever C# would sit. Go is a high level managed language.
Go is modern Java, at least based on the main area of usage: server infrastructure and backend services.
Tbh Go is also really nice for various local tools where you don’t want something as complex as C++ but also don’t want to depend on the full C# runtime (or large bundles when self-contained), or the same with Java.
With Wails it’s also a low friction way to build desktop software (using the heretical web tech that people often reach for, even for this use case), though there are a few GUI frameworks as well.
Either way, self contained executables that are easy to make and during development give you a rich standard library and not too hard of a language to use go a long way!
Go is modern/faster Python.
- It was explicitly intended to "feel dynamically-typed"
- Tries to live by the zen of Python (more than Python itself!)
- Was built during the time it was fashionable to use Python for the kinds of systems it was designed for, with Google thinking at the time that they would benefit from moving their C++ systems to that model if they could avoid incurring the performance problems associated with Python. Guido Van Rossum was also employed at Google during this time. They were invested in that sort of direction.
- Often reads just like Python (when one hasn't gone deep down the rabbit hole of all the crazy Python features)
i wonder what makes go more modern than java, in terms of features.
The tooling and dependency management probably
I still don't understand how they managed to make a build system as bad as Gradle. It's like they tried to make it as horrible as possible to use.
Yes, every time I fire up an old Android project it needs to download 500MB just for gradle upgrades. It's nuts.
It's also a modern C.
If you enjoy C and wish it was less verbose and more modern, try Go.
Go has a garbage collector though. This makes it unsuitable for many use cases where you could have used C or C++ in the past. Rust and Zig don't have a GC, so they are able to fill this role.
GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics), but would also be unwanted for other use cases where worst case latency is important, such as realtime audio/video processing, games (where you don't want stutter, remember Minecraft in Java?), servers where tail latency matters a lot, etc.
> GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics)
Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it? It doesn't really contradict what the parent comment stated about Go feeling like modern C (with a boehm gc included if you will). We're using it this way and it feels just fine. I'd be happy to see parts of our C codebase rewritten in Go, but since that code is security sensitive and has already been through a number of security reviews there's little motivation to do so.
> Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it?
My specific use case is yes, but there are a ton of microcontrollers running realtime tasks all around us: brakes in cars, washing machine controllers, PID loops to regulate fans in your computer, ...
Embedded systems in general are far more common than "normal" computers, and many of them have varying levels of realtime requirements. Don't believe me? Every classical computer or phone will contain multiple microcontrollers, such as an SSD controller, a fan controller, wifi module, cellular baseband processor, ethernet NIC, etc. Depending on the exact specs of your device of course. Each SOC, CPU or GPU will contain multiple hidden helper cores that effectively run as embedded systems (Intel ME, AMD PSP, thermal management, and more). Add to that all the appliances, cars, toys, IOT things, smartcards, etc all around us.
No, I don't think it is niche. Fewer people may work on these, but they run in far more places.
See TamaGo, used to write firmware in Go, being shipped in production.
Not familiar with it, but reading the github page it isn't clear how it deals with GC. Do you happen to know?
Some embedded use cases would be fine with a GC (MicroPython is also a thing after all). Some want deterministic deallocation. Some want no dynamic allocator at all. From what I have seen, far more products are in the latter two categories. While many hobby projects fall into the first two categories. That is of course a broad generalization, but there is some truth to it.
Many products want to avoid allocation entirely either because of the realtime properties, or because they are cost sensitive and it is worth spending a little bit extra dev effort to be able to save an Euro or two and use a cheaper microcontroller where the allocator overhead won't fit (either the code in flash, or just the bookkeeping in RAM).
Yes, just like with real time Java for embedded targets from PTC and Aicas, it is its own implementation with another GC algorithm, additionally there are runtime APIs for regions/arenas.
Here is the commercial product for which it was designed,
https://reversec.com/usb-armory
A presentation from 2024,
https://www.osfc.io/2024/talks/tamago-bare-metal-go-for-arm-...
Not everybody is writing web apps.
You can also see it differently: If the language dictates a 4x increase in memory or CPU usage, you have set a much closer deadline before you need to upgrade the machine or rearchitect your code to become a distributed system by a factor 4 as well.
Previously, delivering a system (likely in C++) that consumed factor 4 fewer resources was an effort that cost developer time at a much higher factor, especially if you had uptime requirements. With Rust and similar low-overhead languages, the ratio changes drastically. It is much cheaper to deliver high-performance solutions that scale to the full capabilities of the hardware.
Thanks. I write some Go, and feel the same about it. I really enjoy it actually.
Maybe I'll jump to Zig as a side-gig (ha, it rhymes), but I still can't motivate myself to play with Rust. I'm happy with C++ on that regard.
Maybe gccrs will change that, IDK, yet.
Go is a language which sits perfectly where using garbage collection is no problem with ya.
C++ added OOP to C.
Rust is not object-oriented.
That makes your statement wrong.
It certainly is according to the various CS definitions of type systems.
Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
> Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1
Plenty of OOP architecture can be implemented in C. That's an extremely flawed and fuzzy definition. But we've been through this before.
Yet people have to keep be reminded of it.
I think the issue is OOP patterns are one part missing features, one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++, SmallTalk, that it ends up too broad.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
> one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The issue is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming. Of course, imperative, functional, and object-oriented language can all be either mutable or immutable, but that seems to evade some.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone, because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted in a similar way. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?
> The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
> You omitted Smalltalk.
Exactly. It isn't functional. It doesn't use functions. It uses message passing instead. That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk. It didn't fit within the use of "imperative" and "functional" that preceded it.
> But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
That is the thesis: That Smalltalk is neither imperative nor functional. That is why it was given its own category. Maybe you've already forgotten, but I will remind that it was Smalltalk's creator that invented the term "object-oriented" for Smalltalk. Smalltalk being considered something different is the only reason for why "object-oriented" exists in the lexicon.
Erlang is the language that challenges the common ground thesis: It has both functions with encapsulation and message passing with encapsulation. However, I think that is easily resolved by accepting that it is both functional and object-oriented. That is what Joe Armstrong himself settled on and I think we can too.
> What I prefer is looking at it as it's used.
And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here. Everyone has their own vastly different definition. Just look at how many different definitions we got in this thread alone.
> No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit.
Actually, absent of context defining whether you are referring to culinary or botanical, many actually do think of a cucumber as a fruit. The whole "did you know a tomato is actually a fruit?" is something that made the big leagues in the popular culture. However, your general point is sound: The definitions used are consistent across most people. That is not the case for object-oriented, though. Again, everyone, their brother, and pjmlp have their own thoughts and ideas about what it means. Looking at use isn't going to settle on a useful definition.
Realistically, if you want to effectively use "object-oriented" in your communication, you are going to have to explicitly define it each time.
> That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk.
Sure but your definition doesn't cover it. If language for which the term was coined, it's a bit meaningless, ain't it.
Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
I can see them being necessary but not enough to classify something as OOP.
> And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here.
Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP, but for example C isn't.
Same way when people say and give me a fruit (as in fruits and vegetables), you'd be looked oddly if you gave a cucumber, rather than an apple.
Same way can be thought of OOP. The common definition is basically covers Message-passing-languages, and inheritance/prototype based languages.
> Sure but your definition doesn't cover it.
How does it not cover it?
> Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions:
- Imperative: Plain functions (C, Fortran, Pascal).
- Functional: Functions with encapsulation (C++, Java, Haskell, Erlang).
- Object-oriented: Message passing (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Ruby, Erlang).
Let me also reiterate that there are other axis of concerns. Imperative, functional, and object-oriented are not trying to categorize every last feature a programming language might have. Mutable/immutable, or polymorphic/monomorphic, etc. are others concern and can be independently labeled as such.
> Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP
Many do, but just as many hold on to the original definition. Try as you might, you're not going to find a common definition here, I'm afraid. If you want to use the term effectively, you're going to have to explicitly define it each time.
> Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions
Sigh. Look at what started this whole discussion.
It's pjmlp's insistence that Rust is object-oriented.I'm fine with object-oriented meaning message passing.
I'm fine with object-oriented being used to describe inheritance based langs Java/C#/C++.
But where that fails miserably is when you try implementing inheritance based stuff like DOM in Rust.
You can't have your cake (all capabilities of OOP) and also eat it too (also most of them missing).
Rust was never about inheritance hierarchies or message passing.
It's just structs with privacy modifiers. And functions that are applied to them.
> Look at what started this whole discussion.
If you are pointing out that there is no consistent definition for OOP, I agree. I've said so multiple times. Yes, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
It is not clear where you think that might otherwise fit into our discussion? I, to the best of my ability, spelled out the historical definitions that we are talking about so that we had a shared understanding. What someone else may have defined the same words as is irrelevant.
I think we can agree that these dividing lines aren't even useful, but the history behind them is understandable. In the beginning there was imperative programming, named to differentiate from unstructured programming. Then came encapsulation, which didn't fit under imperative, so they named it functional to separate it from imperative. But then came Smalltalk, and it recognized that it doesn't fit under imperative or functional, so it gave itself the name "object-oriented".
If we could go back in time we'd realize that none of these names bring any significance [hence why there is no consistent definition] and throw them away. But we cannot go back in time. We could recognize today that they are just a historical curiosity and throw them away now, but it seems there is too much emotional attachment to them at this point.
So, if you want to use them to satisfy your emotional desires, you can! But you need to also explicitly define them each time so that the reader/listener understands what you mean by it. Failure to do so means they will pick their own pet definition, and then you will talk past each other. There is no commonality found around these terms because, again, any definition you choose (pjmlp's, mine, yours, anyone's) none of them convey any truly useful information, so any definition offered is never retained by anyone else.
> It's pjmlp's insistence that Rust is object-oriented.
It is, for some definition of object-oriented. But this perfectly highlights how there isn't useful information to be found in the use of the term. Even if we all agreed on what object-oriented means, what would you learn from it? Nothing, is what. It was a pointless statement and we can accept it as such.
> It is, for some definition of object-oriented.
Sure, for some definition of red, green is red. E.g., colorblind people. I'm interested in more broadly accepted jargon.
The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
It's not message-passing sense (can't do cool fancy things* a la Ruby or Smalltalk); nor is it inheritance-based (can't do inheritance-based nor prototype-based OOP patterns).
There is one more mathematical definition of whether two features are equal, but it involves languages, local macros, and Turing machines. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc
* There was some kind of message recorder and playback in Ruby/Smalltalk, that I can't find. Basically send methods to objects and record them, then playback them at later date. Will update if I find it.
> The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
May I suggest "programming language"? I think you will find that most everyone agrees that Rust is a programming language.
In context, it's functional, but I think you rejecting that historical definition means that you agree with me that the attempt at categorization here doesn't provide any useful information. So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
If I take a walk down the street and tell the first guy I meet, "Hey, Rust is a programming language", what information did he miss out on that you find critical?
When we establish that, we might find out there is already a widely recognized term. You won't find it in "object-oriented", however. It has never been used in a context where the information was useful. Even the original message passing definition was never useful as you always had to explain what message passing is at the same time anyway, negating the value of a single word to use as a shorthand.
Words are not given to us naturally by the universe. They are a human invention. Consistent definitions for words only become accepted consistently when those humans find utility in adopting something consistent. "If you build it, they will come" only works in movies.
> So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
Expressivity. As the video I linked before shows, there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't. Or lambda's or async.
What terms like "message passing" and "inheritance-based" capture is unique ability of each language to do something novel* other languages can't. Rust as of now lacks such capabilities, although it can probably simulate them to some extent.
*For message passing, it's the method record and replayer. For inheritance-based it can be something like easy DOM manipulation.
> Expressivity.
Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language. But then I'm going to ask: What does expressivity mean?
Ruby is always hailed for its expressivity. Is it also an expressive programming language despite having very little in common with Rust technically?
It seems to me you're going back down the road Kay did thinking that "object-oriented" could become the way to describe his actor based, message passing model. It never caught on because what that means isn't well understood and had to be explained in more detail, so a single word didn't add any value, and thus nobody ever took note of it.
> there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't.
Well, I suggest we have a way to say that: {X} {has|does not have} exceptions. The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see. If you need to talk about multiple features, then make it a list: {X} has exceptions, lambdas, and inheritance. Laundry list of features are easy to describe. It is when one wants to speak more conceptually that it is harder to find something of actual value as it is usually the concept that you want to explain.
And maybe that's all you really need to get the information conveyed here? "Rust is a programming language" → "Rust is a programming language that has x, y, and z."
> Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language.
That's not what I mean. Expressivity allows you to objectively test if two languages are different. The functional/objective/imperative are trying to capture some expressive features.
Using expressivity, you can finally put a Turing machine to that feeling and test it.
> The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see.
Missing the point. Message oriented language captures the expressivity of having the ability to send and receive arbitrary methods. This is what I mean.
If OOP or MOP is just a marketing term, then it carries no value.
Fruit = { Apple, Cucumber, … }
Veg = { Cucumber, … }
Fruit As In = Fruit − Veg
Culinary they are separate. But fruit can refer to anything that develops from a pollinated flower. Including cucumber and strawberry.
Yes, of course you can call objc_msgSend or equivalent in Rust just as you can in C. But you are pushing the object-oriented model into a library. It is not native to the language.
I am talking about Rust OOP language features for polymorphism, dynamic and static dispatch, encapsulation, interfaces.
Which allowed me to port 1:1 the Raytracing Weekend tutorial from the original OOP design in C++ to Rust.
Also the OOP model used by COM and WinRT ABIs, that Microsoft makes heavy use of in their Rust integration across various Windows and Office components.
Objective-C added OOP to C. C++ did not. C++ is neither an OO language nor a C superset.
If you make up your own definitions things can be anything you want and have or not have any label.
Absolutely. That's why it is best to stick to the already established definitions. Kay was quite explicit about what "object-oriented" meant when the term was uttered for the first time; including specifically calling out C++ as not being object-oriented.
And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?
Don't you think it's a bit silly to keep rehashing tribalistic arguments that people moved on from 40 years ago?
Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.
But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.
Zig is Modula-2/Object Pascal re-packaged with a C like syntax.
Time to start zig++
Zig is what you want to write, because it gets out of the way.
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.
I'd rather my colleagues (and past self) write Rocq.
Rust is what you use when you'd rather spend time doing sales and marketing for Rust than building software.
zig really makes it unappealing to architecture astronaut, and rust pushes you towards it. id rather my colleagues write zig
Zig 0.15 is pretty stable. The biggest issue I face daily are silent compiler errors (SIGBUS) for trivial things, e.g. a typo in an import path. I've yet to find exactly why this [only sometimes] causes such a crash, but they're a real pain to figure out over a large changeset. `zig ast-check` sometimes catches the error, else Claude's pretty good at spotting where I accidentally re-used a variable name (again, 90% of the time I do that, it's an easy error, but the other 10%, I get a message-less compiler crash). It sounds like the changes in the OP might be specifically addressing these types of issues.
Also, my .zig-cache is currently at 173GB, which causes some issues on the small Linux ARM VPS I test with.
As for upgrades. I upgraded lightpanda to 0.14 then 0.15 and it was fine. I think for lightpanda, the 0.16 changes might not be too bad, with the only potential issue coming from our use of libcurl and our small websocket server (for CDP connections). Those layers are relatively isolated / abstracted, so I'm hopeful.
As a library developer, I've given up following / tracking 0.16. For one, the change don't resonate with me, and for another, it's changing far too fast. I don't think anyone expects 0.16 support in a library right now. I've gotten PRs for my "dev" branches from a few brave souls and everyone seems happy with that arrangement.
> The biggest issue I face daily are silent compiler errors (SIGBUS) for trivial things, e.g. a typo in an import path.
I don't use zig. My experience has been that caches themselves are sources of bugs (not talking about zig only, but in general). Clearing all relevant caches occasionally is useful when you're experiencing weird bugs.
I don't know why I was downvoted here. One day, I was experiencing weird compilation errors. Clearing the `ccache` C/C++ compiler cache helped get past the problem. Yes, I could have investigated in detail what was the issue and if ccache had a bug but sometimes you don't have the luxury of investigating everything your toolchain throws at you.
You don't use it, but you're offering unsolicited advice about it, and that advice is very generic.
It's not even an argument that you're wrong, just that it's not contributing much and people think that other replies should come first.
Never mind that the previous poster’s insight about caches is correct.
Zig has had caching bugs/issues/limitations that could be worked around by clearing the cache. (Has had, and more that likely still has, and will have.)
That .zig-cache seems massive to me. I keep mine on a tmpfs and remove it every time the tmpfs is full.
Do you see any major problems when you remove your .zig-cache and start over?
Just a slower build. From ~20 seconds to ~65 seconds the first time after I nuke it.
But why is it so big in the first place?
I was searching around for causes and came across the following issues: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/15358 which was moved to https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/30193
The following quotes stand out
> zig's caching system is designed explicitly so that garbage collection could happen in one process simultaneously while the cache is being used by another process.
> I just ran WizTree to find out why my disk was full, and the zig cache for one project alone was like 140 GB.
> not only the .zig-cache directory in my projects, but the global zig cache directory which is caching various dependencies: I'm finding each week I have to clear both caches to prevent run-away disk space
Like what's going on? This doesn't seem normal at all. I also read somewhere that zig stores every version of your binary as well? Can you shed some light on why it works like this in zigland?
AFAIK garbage collection is basically not implemented yet. I myself do `ZIG_LOCAL_CACHE_DIR=~/.cache/zig` so I only have to nuke single directory whenever I feel like it.
what exactly people call 'garbage collection' in Zig? build cache cleanup?
Indeed what was referred to here is the zig build system cache.
Does Zig have incremental builds yet? Or is it 20 secs each time for your build.
20 seconds each time. Last time I tried to enable incremental build, it wasn't working for us. It was a while ago, but I think it had to do with something in our v8 bridge.
I have heard that from other Zig devs too. Must get a bit annoying as the project grows. But I guess it will be supported sooner or later.
It's discussed in the post.
The forever backwards compatible promise of C++ was a tremendous design mistake that has resulted in mindshare death as of 2026. It might suck to have to modify your code to continue to get it to work, but it’s the right long term approach.
> that has resulted in mindshare death as of 2026
I could make a bet that as of 2026 still more C++ projects are being started than Rust + Zig combined.
World is much more vast than ShowHN and GitHub would indicate.
Being started? I would take that bet.
It suffices to use the games industry, HFT and HPC as domains.
Pretty sure even games moved to C#.
Mindshare death is a very large overstatement given the massive amount of legacy C++ out there that will be maintained by poor souls for year to come. But you are right, there used to be a great language hiding within C++ if the committee ever dared to break backwards compat. But even if they did it now it would be too late and they'd just end up with a worse Rust or Zig.
The biggest problem with C++ is that while everyone agrees there is a great language hiding in it, everyone also has a remarkably different idea of what that great language actually is.
I don't agree there's a great language hiding in C++. My high level objections would be that the type system is garbage and the syntax is terrible, so you'd need a different type system and syntax and that's nothing close to C++ after the changes.
After many years of insisting that "dialects" of C++ are a terrible idea, despite the reality that most C++ users have a specific dialect they use - Bjarne Stroustrup has endorsed essentially the same thing but as "profiles" to address safety issues. So for people who think there is a "great language" in there perhaps in C++ 29 or C++ 32 you will be able to find out for yourselves that you're wrong.
There are multiple great languages hiding within it
As proven a few times, it doesn't matter if committee decides to break something if compiler vendors aren't on board with what is being broken.
There is still this disconnection on how languages under ISO process work in the industry.
The C++ standards committee’s antiquated reliance on compiler “vendors” holds it back. They should adopt maintenance of clang and bless it as the reference compiler.
And you will be the one telling the losers that their compiler, operating systems and OS doesn't count?
By the way this applies to the C language so beloved on this corner as well.
As it does to COBOL, Fortran, Ada and JS (ECMA is not much different from ISO).
Rust has managed just fine to remain mostly backwards compatible since 1.0 , while still allowing for evolution of the language through editions.
This puts much more work on the compiler development side, but it's a great boon for the ecosystem.
To be fair, zig is pre 1.0, but Zig is also already 8 years old. Rust turned 1.0 at ~ 5 years, I think.
Rust started in 2006 and reached v1 in 2015, that's 9 years.
Rust existed nearly entirely on paper until 2009, when Mozilla started funding researchers to work on it full-time. It wasn't announced in any sort of official capacity until 2010, and had no official numbered release until 2012. It was less than three and a half years between 0.1 and 1.0, and in that time, hard as it is to believe, it underwent more overall change than Zig has.
There is a reason GCC, LLVM, CUDA, Metal, HPC,.. rely on C++ and will never rewrite to something else, including Zig.
Yes, inertia. If those projects started today, they would likely choose rust.
Why isn't rustc using Cranelift then?
I can think a few reasons:
- Cranelift applies less optimizations in exchange for faster compilation times, because it was developed to compile WASM (wasmtime), but turns out that is good enough for Rust debug builds.
- Cranelift does not support the wide range of platforms (AFAIK just X86_64 and some ARM targets)
So it isn't just a matter of "they would use Rust instead".
There is a whole ecosystem of contributions across the globe and the lingua franca used by those contributors.
> There is a whole ecosystem of contributions across the globe and the lingua franca used by those contributors.
which is slowly changing with wider rust adaptation.
Where are the LLVM pull requests adding Rust code?
I am not expert in compilers, but in databases space there are multiple prominent projects which gain traction, create ecosystem and making Rust strong contender against C++ dominance.
Same reason Android and Chrome and git and Linux weren't written in Rust when they started. Rust didn't exist. All of these projects integrate Rust now, after being single language projects for the longest time.
It's notable that the projects you mentioned mostly don't need to deal with adversarial user input, while the projects I mentioned do. That's one area that Rust shines in.
Rust presence in Android is minimal, and not officially supported for userspace.
Android team is quite clear that Java, Kotlin, C and C++ are the official languages for app developers.
Chrome even has less Rust than Firefox.
Linux has some baby adoption, and it isn't without drama, even with Microsoft and Google pushing for it.
Rust will never be in Android user space, because it's not competing with Kotlin. Kotlin is already excellent there. Rust will replace the parts of Android written in C++ gradually. That was always the plan. It feels weird and cope-y to move the goalposts to say it's not a big deal unless Rust also replaces Kotlin.
Chrome only needs to replace the parts of their codebase that handle untrusted input with Rust to get substantial benefits. Like codec parsers. They don't need to rewrite everything, just the parts that need rewriting. The parts that are impossible to get right in C++, to the point where Chrome spins up separate processes to run that code.
Rust is the future for Android, and it will become an important of Chrome and Linux and git (starting 3.0). That's just the way it is.
Looking at LLVM build times I seriously believe that C would have been the better choice :/ (it wouldn't be a problem if LLVM wouldn't be the base for so many other projects)
Same for the Metal shading language. C++ adds exactly nothing useful to a shading language over a C dialect that's extended with vector and matrix math types (at least they didn't pick ObjC or Swift though).
CUDA, SYSCL, HLSL evolution roadmap, and Khronos future for Vulkan beg to differ with your opinion.
> HLSL evolution roadmap
...that's just because of the traditional-game-dev Stockholm syndrome towards C++ (but not too much C++ please!).
> Khronos future for Vulkan
As far as I'm aware Khronos is not planning to move the Vulkan API to C++ - and the 'modern C++' sample code which adds a C++ RAII wrapper on top of the Vulkan C API does more harm than good (especially since lifetime management for Vulkan object is a bit more involved than just adding a class wrapper with a destructor).
See the talks around Vulkan ecosystem, and GPU shading languages from February.
There is more than one sample using C++, now they make use of C++20, including modules if desired.
> now they make use of C++20, including modules if desired.
It's in line with many other shitty design decisions coming out of Khronos, so I'm not even surprised ;)
IMHO it's a pretty big problem when the spec is on an entirely different abstraction level than the sample code (those new samples also move significant code into 'helper classes', which means all the interesting stuff is hidden away).
The forever backwards compatible promise of C++ is pretty much the main reason anyone is using C++.
Hilariously, they broke this compatibility. std::auto_ptr was an abomination, but removing it from the language was needless and undermined the long term stability that differentiates C++ from upstarts.
those that used it were rightly punished by the removal
Mitchell Hashimoto (developer of Ghostty) talks about Zig a lot. Ghostty is written in it, and he seems to love it. The churn doesn't seem to bother him at all.
I asked him about in a thread a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47206009#47209313
The makers of TigerBeatle also rave about how good Zig is.
It's been a non-issue for us at tvScientific. Once or twice a year you settle in for a mass refactor, and when that's done you move on with your day.
Packages do fall behind. We only use a couple, so it's pretty easy to point to an internal fork while we wait for upstream to update or to accept our updates. That'd probably be a pain point if you were using a lot of them.
Running a ~20Kloc 0.16 Zig in prod, compiled and deployed as DebugSafe. No issues, superstable. This was rewrite of Node.js/Typescript computation module, and we chose Zig over Rust due to better support for f128. Zig/DebugSafe is approximately twice faster than TypeScript/Node.js 25 for our purpose, with approximately 70% less memory consumption. We were not impacted by WriterGate and other recent scandals much because we primarily rely on libc, and we don't use much of Zig's I/O standard lib.
Zig has a better support for sqlite/JSON serialization (everything is strongly typed and validated) than Node.js, so that was a plus as well.
Zig minuses are well known: lack of syntax sugar for closures/lambdas/vtable, which makes it hard to isolate layers of code for independent development.
We use Arcs (atomic reference counting) with resource scopes (bumper allocators) extensively, so memory safety is not a concern despite aggressively multithreading logic. The default allocator automatically detects memory leaks, use-after-free, etc so we are planning to continue running it in DebugSafe indefinitely. We tried switching to ReleaseFast and gained about 25%, which is not that much faster to lose memory safety guarantees.
The language itself does not change much, but the std does. It depends on individuals, but some people rely less on the std, some copy the old code that they still need.
> Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
Using third party packages is quite problematic yes. I don't recommend using them too much personally, unless you want to make more work for yourself.
Using third party packages has gotten a lot easier with the changes described in this devlog https://ziglang.org/devlog/2026/#2026-02-06
[flagged]
I recently tried to learn it and found it frustrating. A lot of docs are for 0.15 but the latest is (or was) 0.16 which changed a lot of std so none of the existing write ups were valid anymore. I plan to revisit once it gets more stable because I do like it when I get it to work.
0.16 is the development version. 0.15.2 is latest release.
I stopped updating the compiler at 0.14 for three projects. Getting the correct toolchain is part of my (incremental) build process. I don't use any external Zig packages.
I think one of the more PITA changes necessary to get these projects to 0.15 is removing `usingnamespace`, which I've used to implement a kind of mixin. The projects are all a few thousand LOC and it shouldn't be that much trouble, but enough trouble that none of what I gain from upgrading currently justify doing it. I think that's fine.
hi, i'm the founder of https://github.com/zml/zml, very happy with Zig
> I know Bun's using zig to a degree of success, was wondering how the rest were doing.
Just a degree of success?
You can fix you code 10 times you will fix it.
For those like me who have never heard of this software: Bun, some sort of package management service for javascript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bun_(software)
Bun is a full fledged JavaScript runtime! Think node.js but fast
> Think node.js but fast
Color me extremely sceptical. Surely if you could make javascript fast google would have tried a decade ago....
Bun uses JSC (JavaScriptCore) instead of V8. From what I understand, whereas Node/V8 has a higher tier 4 "top speed", JSC is more optimized for memory and is faster to tier up early/less overhead. Good for serverless. Great for agents -> Anthropic purchase.
> Good for serverless. Great for agents -> Anthropic purchase.
Surely nobody would use javascript for either yea? The weaknesses of the language are amplified in constrained environments: low certainty, high memory pressure, high startup costs.
I think Bun helps with the memory pressure, granted this is relative to V8. I'd pushback on the certainty with the reality that TS provides a significant drop in entropy while benefiting from what is a sweet spot between massive corpus size and low barrier for typical problem/use-case complexity. You'll never have the fastest product with JS, but you will always have good speed to market and be able to move quickly.
> Surely nobody would use javascript for either yea?
It's probably the most popular language for serverless.
I can't vouch for this behavior but obviously you can have a better serverless experience than writing lisp with the shittiest syntax invented by man
Only because the likes of Vercel and Netlify barely offer anything else on their free tiers.
When people go AWS, Azure, GCP,... other languages take the reigns.
Do you have any stats on the latter?
My own anecdote.
Claude CLI is based on bun. The dependency is so complete that Bun have now joined Anthropic.
Claude CLI is not exactly a reference of usable software
It's plenty usable. Most of the problems with the claude TUI stem from it being a TUI (no way to query the terminal emulator's displayed character grid), so you have to maintain your own state and try to keep them in sync, which more than a few TUIs will fail at at least sometimes, hence the popularity of conventions like Ctrl+L to redraw.
I don't know what a TUI is (i'm guessing "terminal ui" as if the term CLI doesn't exist lmao) but yea, they could have put effort into their product and not forced people to use their atrocious ncurses interface which is like the worst of all worlds: text interface without the benefit of the shell, zero accessibility.
CLI refers more to non-interactive programs used through a shell, programs like grep or or indeed the `claude` program in non-interactive modes. TUIs (text user interfaces) refers to interactive programs implemented in a terminal interface, what you call ncurses interfaces (but usually aren't implemented using ncurses these days.) They're GUIs in text, so TUIs.
Anyway, their decision to implement a TUI was definitely not done out of laziness nor even pragmatism. It was a fashion choice. A deliberate choice to put their product in the same vibes-space as console jockey hotshot unix pros who spit out arcane one liners to get shit done. They very easily could have asked claude to write itself a proper GUI interface which completely avoids all the pitfalls of TUIs and simplifies a lot of things they went out of their way to make work in a TUI. Support for drag-and-drop for instance, isn't something you'll find in many TUIs but they have it. They put care into making this TUI, the problem is that TUIs are kind of shit, and they certainly know that. They did it this way anyway effectively for marketting reasons.
Hmm. You've given me a lot to think about. I appreciate the effort, and thank you for replying with it.
The actual JS code is in the same ballpark as nodejs. They get fast by specializing to each platform's fastest APIs instead of using generic ones, reimplementing JS libraries in Zig (for example npm or jest) and using faster libraries (for example they use the oniguruma regex engine). Also you don't need an extra transpiling step when using TypeScript.
they have, v8 is a pretty fast engine and an engineering marvel. bun is faster at cost of having worse jit and less correctness
I am impressed by the achievements of the Zig team. I use the ghostty terminal emulator regularly -- it is built in Zig and it is super stable. It is a fantastic piece of software.
This makes me feel that the underlying technology behind Zig is solid.
But I prefer Rust over Zig. The main difference is Rust chooses a "closed world" model while Zig chooses an "open world" model: in Rust, you must explicitly implement a trait while in Zig as long as the shape fits, or the `.` on a structure member exists (for whichever type you pass in), it will work (I don't use Zig so pardon hand wavy description).
This gives Zig very powerful meta programming abilities but is a pain because you don't know what kind of type "shapes" will be used in a particular piece of code. Zig is similar to C++ templates in some respects.
This has a ripple effect everywhere. Rust generated documentation is very rich and explicit about what functions a structure supports (as each trait is explicitly enrolled and implemented). In Zig the dynamic nature of the code becomes a problem with autocomplete, documentation, LSP support, ...
> But I prefer Rust over Zig. The main difference is Rust chooses a "closed world" model while Zig chooses an "open world" model: in Rust, you must explicitly implement a trait while in Zig as long as the shape fits, or the `.` on a structure member exists (for whichever type you pass in), it will work (I don't use Zig so pardon hand wavy description).
Do you happen to have a more specific example by any chance? I’d be interested in what this looks like in practice, because what you described sounds a bit like Go interfaces and from my understanding of Zig, there’s no direct equivalent to it, other than variations of fieldParentPtr.
They are referring to `anytype`, which is a comptime construct telling the compiler that the parameter can be of any type and as long as the code compiles with the given value, it's good.
It's an extremely useful thing, but unconstrained, it's essentially duck typing during compile time. People has been wanting some kind of trait/interface support to constrain it, but it's unlikely to happen.
Conceptually it's quite similar to how C++ templates work (not including C++20 concepts, which is the kind of constraining you're talking about).
I quite like it when writing C++ code. Makes it dead easy to write code like `min` that works for any type in a generic way. It is, however, arguably the main culprit behind C++s terrible compiler-errors, because you'll have standard library functions which have like a stack of fifteen generic calls, and it fails really deeply on some obscure inner thing which has some kind of type requirement, and it's really hard to trace back what you actually did wrong.
In my (quite limited) experience, Zig largely avoids this by having a MUCH simpler type system than C++, and the standard library written by a sane person. Zig seems "best of both worlds" in this regard.
[dead]
The kernel32 -> Ntdll changes are the most interesting thing to me here. A lot of the rationale is applicable also to the linux userspace APIs, especially errors in return at the kernel-userspace boundary vs GetLastError/errno in kernel32/libc. Of course on linux the "problem" is that libc and the kernel API are intimately intertwined and the former mandates using errno. I wonder how the pattern made its way into windows as well. That environment has never seemed to me to promote using libc.
The errno/GetLastError() pattern is a remnant from a time before threads were a thing. You could have multiple processes, but they were largely scheduled collaboratively (rather than preemptively).
In that world, things like global variables are perfectly fine. But then we got first preemptive scheduling and threads, then actual multicore CPUs, so global variables became really dangerous. Thread locals are the escape hatch that carried these patterns into the 21st century, for better or worse.
Indeed, and this change of philosophy shows up in the pthread (POSIX threads) API, which returns error values directly (as a negative integer) instead of setting the errno variable.
Instead of implementing a workaround for types as namespaces, wouldn't it better to explicitly add namespaces to the language?
I think zig is striving for language minimalism, make it minimal as possible then if a feature optimized multiple places use cases benefit
It's not so much a workaround as it is an elegance in design. In Zig, when you @import a file, that file is converted to a struct with comptime fields for all of the public members. Similarly, a "namespace" in Zig is just a nested struct with more fields. Usually it's just another import of something else.
N.B.: Coffee hasn't reached my bloodstream yet; accuracy not guaranteed.
files aren't converted to structs on import, they _are_ structs (well, their contents are the inside of a struct declaration). also, public members don't become comptime fields? file structs are basically left as-is on import, nearly like you copy&pasted the file contents into a struct declaration
I just have to add another reflection:
One thing that tends to be overlooked when discussing changes is the ecosystem effect of frequent changes.
A language that breaks frequently doesn't just impose upgrade work on apps, but also discourages the creation of long-lived libraries and tools. Anything that sits between the language and the user (linters, bindings, frameworks, teaching material, tutorials etc) has to to some degree "chase the language"
This means that the ecosystem will skew toward very actively maintained libraries and away from "write once then leave it alone" libs. And this the trade-off is reasonable during early language design, but it's worth acknowledging that it has real consequences for ecosystem growth.
One should note that other newer languages have put significant effort into minimizing this churn, precisely to allow the latter type of ecosystem to also form. So it's kind of an experiment, and it will be interesting to see which approach ends up producing the larger ecosystem over time.
An example for this is the Blender addon ecosystem. Blender moves very fast, breaking API changes every few versions. Now I am not an addon developer myself, but from github issues I follow, changes are fairly often trivial to do.
Yet, someone has to do them. Ideally it is the creator of the addon, sometimes it's the users who do it, when the addon is not maintained anymore (in case of trivial changes).
It kinda works that way, but it also is some kind of gamble for the user. When you see a new addon (and a new addon developer), you can't know if they gonna stick to it or not.
If you have to pay for the addon, it's more likely they maintain it, of course. But also not a guarantee.
Zig's worth it though. I don't care for libraries that aren't maintained anyway. If they don't maintain it, it's just bad anyway. Why do you always nag about Zig. Stop shilling your C3 here.
This kind of thought is popular in the web world where browsers get an update every 3 days and you don't control the hosting services, so constant maintenance is unavoidable.
But in the world of desktop development it's possible for a library to be "done", having a 100% stable codebase going forward and requiring no maintenance. And it's not bad, it's actually good.
Requiring every dependency to be constantly maintained is a massive drain on productivity.
Once Zig hits 1.0 it will essentially be done. They don't plan on making further changes to the language, so they want to get it right while they can.
Looks like all the 2 users of C3 came here to complain about Zig. Why should we listen to you?
I've never even heard of C3, I use C++ and Jai.
I've never used Zig either, I just disagree that requiring constant maintenance is a good.
> Many projects including Chromium, boringssl, Firefox, and Rust call SystemFunction036 from advapi32.dll because it worked on versions older than Windows 8.
That's not true. They use ProcessPrng since versions earlier than 10 are no longer supported (well, rust also has a windows 7 target but that couldn't use ProcessPrng anyway since it wasn't available). The issue they linked is from a decade ago. E.g. here's Chromium: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/dc7016d1ef67e3e128...
> If [ProcessPrng] fails it returns NO_MEMORY in a BOOL (documented behavior is to never fail, and always return TRUE).
From Windows 10 onward ProcessPrng will never fail. There's a whitepaper that gives the justification for this (https://aka.ms/win10rng):
> We also have the property that a request for random bytes never fails. In the past our RNG functions could return an error code. We have observed that there are many callers that never check for the error code, even if they are generating cryptographic key material. This can lead to serious security vulnerabilities if an attacker manages to create a situation in which the RNG infrastructure returns an error. For that reason, the Win10 RNG infrastructure will never return an error code and always produce high-quality random bytes for every request...
> For each user-mode process, we have a (buffered) base PRNG maintained by BCryptPrimitives.dll. When this DLL loads it requests a random seed from kernel mode (where it is produced by the per-CPU states) and seeds the process base PRNG. If this were to fail, BCryptPrimitive.dll fails to load, which in most cases causes the process to terminate. This behavior ensures that we never have to return an error code from the RNG system.
(This is a response to a different devlog entry on the same page, not TFA.)
Oh sorry, I thought this was just listing changes since the branch.
Congratulations to the dev, a 30,000 line PR for a language compiler (and a very much non-trivial compiler) is a feat to be proud of. But a change of this magnitude is a serious bit of development and gave me pause.
I understand both of the following:
1. Language development is a tricky subject, in general, but especially for those languages looking for wide adoption or hoping for ‘generational’ (program life span being measured in multiple decades) usage in infrastructure, etc.
2) Zig is a young-ish language, not at 1.0, and explicitly evolving as of the posting of TFA
With those points as caveats, I find the casualness of the following (from the codeburg post linked on the devlog) surprising:
‘’’This branch changes the semantics of "uninstantiable" types (things like noreturn, that is, types which contain no values). I wasn't originally planning to do this here, but matching the semantics of master was pretty difficult because the existing semantics don't make much sense.’’’
I don’t know Zig’s particular strategy and terminology for language and compiler development, but I would assume the usage of ‘branch’ here implies this is not a change fully/formally adopted by the language but more a fully implemented proposal. Even if it is just a proposal for change, the large scale of the rewrite and clear implication that the author expects it to be well received strikes me as uncommon confidence. Changing the semantics of a language with any production use is nearly definitionally MAJOR, to just blithely state your PR changes semantics and proceed with no deep discussion (which could have previously happened, IDK) or serious justification or statements concerning the limited effect of those changes is not something I have experienced watching the evolution (or de-evolution) of other less ‘serious’ languages.
Is this a “this dev” thing, a Zig thing, or am just out of touch with modern language (or even larger scale development) projects?
Also, not particularly important or really significant to the overall thrust of TFA, but the author uses the phrase “modern Zig”, which given Zig’s age and seeming rate of change currently struck me as a very funny turn of phrase.
When someone's communication is casual and informal, without any context, you really can't distinguish between:
* The author is being flippant and not taking the situation seriously enough.
* The author is presuming a high-trust audience that knows that they have done all the due diligence and don't have to restate all of that.
In this case, it's a devlog (i.e. not a "marketing post") for a language that isn't at 1.0 yet. A certain amount of "if you're here, you probably have some background" is probably reasonable.
The post does link directly to the PR and the PR has a lot more context that clearly conveys the author knows what they are doing.
It is weird reading about (minor) breaking language changes sort of mentioned in passing. We're used to languages being extremely stable. But Zig isn't 1.0 yet. Andrew and friends certainly take user stability seriously, but you signed up for a certain amount of breakage if you pick the language today.
As someone who maintains a post-1.0 language, there really is a lot of value in breaking changes like this. It's good to fix things while your userbase is small. It's maddening to have to live with obvious warts in the language simply because the userbase got too big for you to feasibly fix it, even when all the users wish you could fix it too. (Witness: The broken precedence of bitwise operators in C.)
It's better for all future users to get the language as clean and solid as you can while it's still malleable.
mlugg is one of the core contributors of Zig, and is a member of the Zig foundation iirc. They've been wanting to work on dependency resolution for a while now, so I'm really glad they're cleaning this up (I've been bitten before by unclear circular dependency errors). There's not a formal language spec yet, since it's moving pretty fast, but tbh I don't see the need for a standard, since that's not one of their goals currently.
Originally, Zig's type system was less disciplined in terms of the "zero" type (also known as "noreturn").
This was proposed, discussed, and accepted here: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/3257
Later, Matthew Lugg made a follow-up proposal, which was discussed both publicly and in ZSF core team meetings. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/15909
He writes:
> A (fairly uncontroversial) subset of this behavior was implemented in [the changeset we are discussing]. I'll close this for now, though I'll probably end up revisiting these semantics more precisely at some point, in which case I'll open a new issue on Codeberg.
I don't know how evident this is to the casual HN reader, but to me this changeset very obviously moves Zig the language from experimental territory a large degree towards being formally specified, because it makes type resolution a Directed Acyclic Graph. Just look at how many bugs it resolved to get a feel for it. This changeset alone will make the next release of the compiler significantly more robust.
Now, I like talking about its design and development, but all that being said, Zig project does not aim for full transparency. It says right there in the README:
> Zig is Free and Open Source Software. We welcome bug reports and patches from everyone. However, keep in mind that Zig governance is BDFN (Benevolent Dictator For Now) which means that Andrew Kelley has final say on the design and implementation of everything.
It's up to you to decide whether the language and project are in trustworthy hands. I can tell you this much: we (the dev team) have a strong vision and we care deeply about the project, both to fulfill our own dreams as well as those of our esteemed users whom we serve[1]. Furthermore, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit we have no motive to enshittify.
[1]: https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Zen
It's been incredible working with Matthew. I hope I can have the pleasure to continue to call him my colleague for many years to come.
Where does the name "zero type" come from? In type theory this is called an "empty" type because the set of values of this type is empty and I couldn't find (though I have no idea where to start) mention of it as a "zero" type.
This stuff is foundational and so it's certainly a priority to get it right (which C++ didn't and will be paying for until it finally collapses under its own weight) but it's easier to follow as an outsider when people use conventional terminology.
I think rust calls them "zero sized types".
The ZSTs are unit types. They have one value, which we usually write as just the type name, so e.g.
The choice to underscore that Rust's unit types have size zero is to contrast with languages like C or C++ where these types, which don't need representing, must nevertheless take up a whole byte of storage and it's just wasted.But what we're talking about here are empty types. In Rust we'd write this:
No, that’s a different thing. “noreturn” is like Rust’s “never” type (spelled as an exclamation mark, !). Also known as an “uninhabited type” in programming language theory.
Note that Rust's ! isn't stabilized, however you can (in stable Rust, today) make your own empty/ uninhabited types, yours just isn't "the" canonical empty type for the language, and so the type arithmetic won't necessarily see that it's the same thing in some cases if that matters.
Rust's core::convert::Infallible is such a type, representing in that case the error type for conversions which have no errors. For example, we can try to convert most numeric types into a 16-bit unsigned type, and obviously most of them can fail because your value was too big or negative or whatever. u16 however obviously never fails, the conversion is a no-op, nevertheless it would be stupid if we can't write generic code to convert it - so of course we can, and if we wrote generic error handling code, that code is dead for the u16 case, we can't fail, the use of empty types here justifies the compiler saying OK, that code is dead, don't emit it. Likewise converting u8 to u16 can't fail - although it's slightly more than a no-op in some sense - and so again the error handling is dead code.
I see. I can not give more insightful answer here then. From personal experience, I've noticed with 0.16 with the std.Io async stuff that you cannot do:
where foo's return type is `error{foobar}!noreturn`, because the compiler crashes when it tries to use that type as a std.Io.Future(T)'s struct field. Might be related or not.It is indeed (somewhat) related, and in fact that was fixed by this PR: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/25771
Thanks for the reply Andrew, I certainly did not mean to imply any issues with trustworthiness for Zig users or prospective adopters. Also, I absolutely did not intend to imply any negatives toward Zog’s evolution or this particular development on the compiler’s internals.
I enjoy all of the process and implementation content, i.e. videos, podcast, and blogs that yourself and contributors have provided through various platforms over the years. I made a comment from a relatively u informed place and it seems to have been taken as a negative remark on Zig or the language and compiler’s development. Apologies if it was seen that way yourself or other contributors.
As for Matthew, the work both planning and implementing these changes was clearly a large undertaking and I certainly applaud that and hope no one thought otherwise.
Zog? What the hell man.
I don't use Zig (is not a language for me), but I like to read/watch about it, when you or others talk about the language design and the reasons behind the changes.
Thanks for your and the Zig team work.
> Zig the language from experimental territory a large degree towards being formally specified
Great to hear; I look forward to reading the language spec one day.
You're the man Kelley, don't let the doomers get to you
[flagged]
They literally ended the comment by asking. I don't get why you're criticizing them for providing context that they're not an expert. You're literally distracting from the comment you're telling them has useful information on it, but in a weirdly aggressive way.
This seems unnecessarily hostile. They are asking. Here.
It seems hostile to you, but surely you can see what he's replying to is way more hostile and passive aggressive?
Yes, seems clear, right? It was an extremely hostile pompous criticism of something he didn't understand at all, and the questions were rhetorical, not asked sincerely or in good faith:
> Is this a “this dev” thing, a Zig thing, or am just out of touch with modern language (or even larger scale development) projects?
No, none of those, it's him making numerous rash assumptions.
But my snarky post was probably poor judgment on my part. I won't be commenting further.
Yea, it's better to not feed the troll. I'm kind of shocked AndyKelley took the bait.
Just thinking out loud here, perhaps behavior like this has been more normalized because of the total shitshow that C is. Which followed all these supposedly correct rules.
One thing I’ve noticed reading Zig discussions is that many semantics seem simple on their own but interactions can be subtle – like in the behavior fixed here.
I wonder if this ends up similar to C++ template rules where the surface looks small but the edge cases accumulate over time.
What makes zig special as a language? I have the impression that it has quite a large fan base here on HN but don't really hear any talks about it anywhere else.
Disclaimer: I don't really use Zig (primarily a Rust dev) but I do think it's quite cool.
If you're willing to dive right into it, I'd first read a bit about the comptime system [0] then have a go at reading the source for `MultiArrayList` [1], a container which internally stores elements in SoA format.
At least, that was what got me interested.
[0]: https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#comptime
[1]: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/src/branch/master/lib/std/m...
For me, it's the toolchain. The Zig cross-compiler is beyond anything I've seen.
I can share mine. I am not sure if this connects with you because maybe you are more experienced.
I'm DevOps writing boring Python microservices for €. I have no CS background and never did systems programming. However, writing Python always bothered me because there are so many layers between you and what's happening on the metal. For me, Django is the peak example of this, to me it feels almost like doing no code. It makes me very uncomfortable writing it.
Then I heard about this new programming language Zig on YouTube and I just gave it a try. After using it for a few months, I really like it. I guess mostly because it is so explicit.
It is almost like the language encourages you to think in terms of system design. Zig offers a lot of freedom so you can design the perfect tool for your problem. And somehow, it feels very effective for it. I think it is a blessing that there are few third party libraries for the same reason.
For example. I am working on a tool to parse CIM (some XML standard). If I had to use Python for this, my solution would probably use the most popular xml parsing library and then go from there. Yawn.
Instead, with Zig I started to think with a very fresh mind about the problem. I started thinking more from the first principles of the problem. And I got very excited again about programming. During my swimming practice or biking, I kept thinking about the design and how I can make it simpler and improving it by simply not doing certain busy work. I can't fully explain it. But the language gets you in that mindset.
Maybe other system languages also offer this experience, Zig (marketing?) just happened to cross my paths at the right moment.
I'm sure it's not what you meant, but the argument "it makes me slower at my job and deliver less stable solutions, but I feel cool doing it" is not exactly a compelling endorsement.
I can't see anything in OP's post where he says any of that. Everything you said seems like an incredibly ungenerous reading of what he wrote.
Zig is a systems programming language. Moving from Python to Zig is a step down the tech stack, which brings with it exposure to underlying concepts and limitations that matter when writing any software, and which is especially valuable for a self-taught dev.
He wrote an XML parsing stack on hours instead of doing his job because doing it was, and I quote, "yawn".
Where did he say he did it in work hours? Or that he did it instead of doing his job?
He used the word "yawn" to describe using a popular library without understanding the underlying architecture, not in reference to doing his job.
Honestly, I can't even see a tenuous connection between what you're claiming and what was said in the post. The man is expressing joy about learning new things, and you're... upset about this? For some reason? Weird.
Move 'ZIG'.
It’s good to see that this is finally addressed. It’s been a well known broken part of the language semantics for years.
There are similar hidden quirks in the language that will need to be addressed at some point, such as integer promotion semantics.
To address the question about stability: the Zig community are already used to Zig breaking between 0.x versions. Unlike competitors such as Odin or my own C3, there is no expectation that Zig is trying to minimize upgrading problems.
This is a cultural thing, it would be no real problem to be clear about deprecations, but in the Zig community it’s simply not valued. In fact it’s a source of pride to be able to adapt as fast as possible to the new changes.
I like to talk about expectation management, and this is a great example of it.
In discussions, it is often falsely argued that ”Zig is not 1.0 so breaks are expected” in order to motivate the frequent breaks. However, there are degrees to how you handle breaks, and Zig is clearly in the ”we don’t care to reduce the work”-camp.
If someone is trying to get a more objective look at the Zig upgrade path, then it’s worth keeping in mind that the tradition in Zig is to offload all the work on the user.
The argument, which is frequently voiced, is that ”breaking things will make the language get better and so it’s good that there are language breaks”
It is certainly true that breaking changes are needed, but most people outside of the Zig community would expect it to be done with more care (deprecation paths etc)
Secondly, it should perhaps be a concern for Zig, now at 10 years old, to still produce solidly breaking code every half year.
10 years is the common point where languages go 1.0. However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
This means that in the future, projects using Zig can still expect any libraries and applications to bitrot quickly if they are not constantly maintained.
Putting this in contrast with Odin (9 years old) which is essentially 1.0 already and has been stable for several years.
Maybe this also explains the difference in actual output. For example the number of games I know of written in Odin is somewhere between 5 to 10 times as many as Zig games. Now weighing in that Zig has maybe 5 or 10 times as many users, it means Odin users are somewhere between 20-100 times as likely to have written a playable game.
There are several explanations as to why this is: we could discuss whether the availability of SDL, Raylib etc is easier on Odin (then why is Zig less friendly?), maybe more Odin has better programmers (then why do better programmers choose Odin over Zig), maybe it’s just easier to write resource intensive applications with Odin than Zig (then what do we make of Zig’s claim of optimality?)
If we look past the excuses made for Zig (”it’s easy to fix breaks” ”it’s not 1.0”) and the hype (”Zig is much safer than C” ”Zig makes me so productive”) and compare with Odin in actual productivity, stability and compilation speed (neither C3 nor Odin requires 100s of GB of cache to compile in less than a second using LLVM) then Zig is not looking particularly good.
Even things like build.zig, often touted as a great thing, is making it really hard for a Zig beginner (”to build your first Hello World, first understand this build script in non-trivial Zig”). Then for IDEs, suddenly something like just reading the configuration of what is going to be used for building is hidden behind an opaque Zig script. These trade-offs are rarely talked about, as both criticism and hype is usually based on surface rather than depth.
Well, that’s long enough of a comment.
To round it off I’d like to end on a positive note: I find the Zig community nice and welcoming. So if you’re trying Zig out (and better do that, don’t let others’ opinions - including mine - prevent you from trying things out) do so.
If you want to evaluate Zig against competitors, I’d recommend comparing it to D, Odin, Jai and C3.
it seems to me like the acceptance of breaking changes by the Zig community is more coming from "it's worth it to get a nice, polished language" than some "source of pride" which i personally have not seen in my time in a/the Zig discord server.
what is the problem with zig being developed for 10+ years? if people want stable languages there are stable languages to be used. if a language like zig is not achievable in less than 10 years, should it just not be developed from the start?
i think your problems with build.zig are overstated. where do you see someone saying "to build your first Hello World, first understand this build script in non-trivial Zig"? you can literally just do `zig run file.zig`, so if someone is advocating for that then i think many would agree they are teaching the wrong way. i wonder if you saw an example project with a build script that was intended to show the power and possibilities of Zig rather than to be a starter guide.
> Secondly, it should perhaps be a concern for Zig, now at 10 years old, to still produce solidly breaking code every half year.
Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
> Not at all, if the team needs 30 more years they should take it.
Yes, I understand that is the opinion in the Zig community. As an outsider, it seems odd to me to pick a language that I constantly need to maintain.
>> However, the outlook for a Zig 1.0 is bleak from what I gather from Zig social forums: the most optimistic estimate I’ve heard is 2029 for 1.0.
> Funny you see it as bleak when most of the community sees it as the most excitinh thing in systems programming happening right now.
You misread that one. I was talking about the odds of seeing a 1.0 version of Zig soon.
> I think you comment is in bad faith, all the big zig projects say that the upgrade path is never a main concern, just read HN comments here or on other zig threads, people ask about this a lot and maintains always answer.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. This is part of the protectiveness from the Zig community that prompted me to write in the first place.
WITHIN the Zig community it is deemed acceptable for Zig upgrades to break code. Consequently it becomes simple survivor bias that people who use Zig for larger projects don't think that this is a major concern BECAUSE IF THEY FELT IT WAS A CONCERN THEY WOULD NOT USE ZIG.
Whether programmers at large feel that this is a problem is an unknown still, since Zig has not yet reached to point of general adoption (when people use Zig because they have to, rather than because they want to).
However, it is INCORRECT to state that just because a language is not yet 1.0 it needs to break older code aggressively without deprecation paths. As an example, Odin removed the old `os` module and replaced it with the new "os2". This break was announced half a year in advance and lots of thought was put into reducing work for developers: https://odin-lang.org/news/moving-towards-a-new-core-os/
In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
I wanted to highlight how these are quite different approaches. For established languages, this is of course even more rigorous, but neither C3 nor Odin are 1.0, and still see this as valuable and their communities then end up expecting it.
So please understand that when you say "it's never a main[sic] concern", this is simple survivor bias.
> In the case of C3, breaking changes only happen once a year with stdlib going through the general process of deprecating functions long before removing them.
zig release happens once a year, either a breaking change. I don't really get how you tried defended yourself, do you think it's any "different"?
Zig is great. If frequent updates are the price for that, so be it.
Honestly it’s kind of narrow-minded not to appreciate how different its approach to low-level programming is. You either see it or you don’t.
C3 is basically just C with a few extra bells and whistles. Still the same old C. Why would I use that when Zig exists? Actually never mind, don’t bother answering.
And the doomer posts are so predictable. That’s usually when you know Zig is doing something right.
A pretty obvious explanation as to why Odin has more games written in it is that the language is somewhat explicitly marketed towards that use-case, even going as far to have a vendor library collection that includes many popular game dev libraries.
I am using games, because they pop up more often (gamejams etc), but we can see the same if we'd look at utility apps. Do you want to broaden that to "Odin is more explicitly marked towards writing applications", but if so what would that say of Zig?
I would begin by questioning the premise. Do you have actual numbers on this? I’m not really aware of any widely adopted software that’s written in Odin. Can name multiple in the case of Zig
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
please don't use AI to write comments
dang can we please ban any user that writes comments with AI?
[flagged]
AI slop. Get lost.