Comment by wyldfire
2 years ago
Andrew is super sharp so I imagine he and the team will get there now that it's declared as a goal.
But man, it seems to me (uneducated on the challenges zig faces w/LLVM) that this shifts the team's capacity away from zig and towards things like binutils. When I read the headline I assumed that they were throwing out the compiler (IIRC they had mostly/totally excised it already). But for a project like zig it just seems like there's a lot to be gained from keeping it.
That said -- the prospect of rewriting a lot of the stuff that's in the LLVM project now in zig instead of c++ - that's pretty cool and ambitious. Just as ambitious as it was for Lattner to create LLVM, I suppose.
But code that's accidentally quadratic - well, that's bound to happen to zig too, if it's as popular and useful as LLVM project is.
There's a document that I think was an unofficial project management document from NASA, I can't find it now, but one of the items was something along the lines of 'if your space mission isn't reusing an existing launch vehicle, it will be a launch vehicle development project and everything else, including what you think is the focus of your mission, will be secondary to this'.
Edit: additional bit I remembered, this statement is prefixed with something like 'you may start thinking you project will be cheaper/more efficient if you develop a launch vehicle suited to your particular mission instead of compromising on an existing one, but', then the above.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design
https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
The relevant law is:
39. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.
I'm reminded of a recent interview with Chris Latner about the success of Swift - he credits the success to the fact that you could start with a large objective C project and begin writing Swift without rewriting anything. Part of Rust's success is off the back of a similar compatibility with C/C++.
It is difficult for me to imagine Zig succeeding without a similar capability - which is to say I hope they do not follow through on this milestone.
But rust absolutely does not have any C/C++ compatibilty besides arguably very good FFI. And that's where zig shines. They have a c/c++ compiler built into the zig compiler via zig cc, that's even easier to use than clang or GCC due to having the benefits of a buildscript and baked in libcs for different architectures, making crosscompilation a breeze.
In zig you _can_ actually start with a c codebase and rewrite it file by file in zig and you _can_ include c headers in your zig files verbatim. Both of these are not possible in rust.
This milestone is only gonna remove the c++ (and objective c/c++) compiler for now from zig cc. So while you could argue this will ostracize people rewriting their c++ codebases in zig, I don't imagine there's actually many people like that. EDIT: I just looked at the discussion and there's actually a lot of people that use the c++ capapbilities.
> In zig you _can_ actually start with a c codebase and rewrite it file by file in zig and you _can_ include c headers in your zig files verbatim. Both of these are not possible in rust.
well, you can: i have done this, with Rust. but yes, it’s more the type of thing that well-resourced companies do rather than solo devs, because even with Bindgen and the like Rust really wants the atomic codegen unit to be the “library”, not C’s notion of a “compilation unit”. still, C FFI compatibility is exactly why porting from C to rust incrementally is feasible while C to, say Java, is probably a bigger leap.
5 replies →
> But rust absolutely does not have any C/C++ compatibilty besides [..]
> In zig you _can_ actually start with a c codebase and rewrite it file by file in zig and you _can_ include c headers in your zig files verbatim. Both of these are not possible in rust.
You can. Either via FFI and bindgen-ing headers, or by using c2rust. The latter is not just a toy ambitious project, but actually a very impressive piece of engineering and does produce a result where you can transpile a project or file and start rewriting file-by-file or function-by-function.
1 reply →
Can Swift really be called a success when it's only being used in the very narrow niche (the Apple software ecosystem - and only because it's essentially dicated by the platform owner)?
Yes, that is how languages become a success on the market, either being pushed by the platform owner no matter what, or by having a framework written in them that everyone feels like using.
Everything else are aspiring extras in the cinema of programing languages, waiting on the sidelines for that major role that will come someday, it really will, one just has to believe enough.
10 replies →
> Just as ambitious as it was for Lattner to create LLVM, I suppose.
A big difference is there was an element of no choice to LLVM, at least in Apple’s takeover of the project: GCC didn’t want to allow / do what Apple wanted / needed out of it.
> now that it's declared as a goal
No. It's an unaccepted proposal.
By the creator and benevolent dictator of the Zig language.
I think it's same to assume it's an official goal, now.
Here’s a list of rejected proposals made by the BDFL:
https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Ap...
1 reply →
binutils is quite a bit of a jack-of-all-trades code for handling binary code formats in portable ways, a compiler doesn't need half of it (incl legacy) if you focus it more like TCC, the larger part will be code-generation across a bunch of architectures.