I have been reading about this new language for a while. It’s a C competitor, very slim language with very interesting choices, like supporting cross platform compilation out of the box, supports compiling C/C++ code (and can be used as a drop in replacement for C) to the point in can be used as replacement of ©make and executables are very small.

But, like all languages, adoption is what makes the difference. And we don’t know how it goes.

Is anyone actually using Zig right now? Any thoughts?

  • Paradox@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Its a neat language, very simple. Has a somewhat simple approach to codegen at compile time, which is both a boon and a curse; you can do a lot with it, and not get too deep into footgun territory, but once you hit the limits of what you can do, you’re pretty much stuck there.

    The syntax and other features are very nice, and it makes rather small binaries. I’d say its comparable to Nim in this area.

    Sadly, it also suffers the same problems Nim suffers: dearth of libraries.

    • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sadly, it also suffers the same problems Nim suffers: dearth of libraries.

      That might change once the language stabilizes. Imagine creating a library now and the language changes breaking it.

      • Paradox@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        In theory yes, but it becomes a problem of ergonomics. The transpiled library feels like a transpiled library, it doesn’t match the conventions of Nim/Zig. The best ports/wrappers/whatever typically use the C lib for all the heavy lifting and unique things, and build their own interface, that matches conventions of the calling language