Plenty. I assumed that the code examples had been cleaned up manually, so instead I looked at a few random "Caveats, alternatives, edge cases" sections. These contain errors typically made by LLMs, such as suggesting to use features that doesn't exist (std.mem.terminated), are non-public (argvToScriptCommandLineWindows) or removed (std.BoundedArray). These sections also surfaces irrelevant stdlib and compiler implementation details.
This looks like more data towards the "LLMs were involved" side of the argument, but as my other comment pointed out, that might not be an issue.
We're used to errata and fixing up stuff produced by humans, so if we can fix this resource, it might actually be valuable and more useful than anything that existed before it. Maybe.
One of my things with AI is that if we assume it is there to replace humans, we are always going to find it disappointing. If we use it as a tool to augment, we might find it very useful.
A colleague used to describe it (long before GenAI, when we were talking about technology automation more generally) as following: "we're not trying to build a super intelligent killer robot to replace Deidre in accounts. Deidre knows things. We just want to give her better tools".
So, it seems like this needs some editing, but it still has value if we want it to have value. I'd rather this was fixed than thrown away (I'm biased, I want to learn systems programming in zig and want a good resource to do so), and yes the author should have been more upfront about it, and asked for reviewers, but we have it now. What to do?
We really are in the trenches. How is this garbage #1 on the front page of *HN* right now?
Even if it was totally legitimate, the "landing page" (its design) and the headline ("Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software."?????) should discredit it immediately.
When was the front page of HN that impressive anyways? It has always been latest fad and the first to comment "the right thing to say" gets rewarded with fake internet points.
I made a comment about it obviously being AI generated, and my comment[1] was quickly downvoted, and there were comments explaining how I was obviously incorrect ("Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong."). My comment was pushed under many comments saying the book was a fantastic resource. Extremely strange.
That issue has been deleted. In addition, the author has tagged other issues with labels that are not appropriate for the mission of being a core zig learning resource:
I seem to remember seeing this a week or two ago, and it was very obviously AI generated. (For those unfamiliar with Zig, AI is awful at generating Zig code: small sample dataset and the language updates faster than the models.) Reading it today I had a hard time spotting issues. So I think the author put a fair amount of work into cleaning up hallucinations and fixing inaccuracies.
The exchange on https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/4? If so, your botdar is better than mine. While the project owner doesn't understand the issue at first, they seem to get it in the end. The exchange looks sort of normal to me, but then I guess I am doomed to be fooled regularly in our new regime.
Some text in the book itself is odd, but I'll be a guinea pig and try to learn zig from this book and see how far I get.
I literally just came across this resource a couple of days ago and was going to go through it this week as a way to get up to speed on Zig. Glad this popped up on HN so I can avoid the AI hallucinations steering me off track.
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
The author could of course be lying. But why would you use AI and then very explicitly call out that you’re not using AI?
There are too many things off about the origin and author to not be suspicious of it. I’m not sure what the motivation was, but it seems likely. I do think they used the Zig source code heavily, and put together a pipeline of some sort feeding relevant context into the LLM, or maybe just codex or w/e instructed to read in the source.
It seems like it had to take quite a bit of effort to make, and is interesting on its own. And I would trust it more if I knew how it was made (LLMs or not).
Because AI content is at minimum controversial nowadays. And if you are ok with lying about authorship then It is not further down the pole to embelish the lie a bit more
I looked into that project issue your referencing. There is absolutely zero mentioning of zig labeled blocks in that exchange. There is no misunderstanding or confusion whatsoever.
It's a formatting bug with zig labeled blocks and the response was a screenshot of code without one, saying (paraphrasing) lgtm it must be on your end.
I'd love it if we can stop the "Oh, this might be AI, so it's probably crap" thing that has taken over HN recently.
1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here.
2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless. In fact, this looks pretty decent as a resource. Producing learning material is one of the few areas we can likely be confident that AI can add value, if the tools are used carefully - it's a lot better at that than producing working software, because synthesising knowledge seen elsewhere and moving it into a new relatable paradigm (which is what LLMs do, and excel at), is the job of teaching.
3. If it's maintained or not is neither here nor there - can it provide value to somebody right now, today? If yes, it's worth sharing today. It might not be in 6 months.
4. If there are hallucinations, we'll figure them out and prove the claim it is AI generated one way or another, and decide the overall value. If there is one hallucination per paragraph, it's a problem. If it's one every 5 chapters, it might be, but probably isn't. If it's one in 62 chapters, it's beating the error rate of human writers quite some way.
Yes, the GitHub history looks "off", but maybe they didn't want to develop in public and just wanted to get a clean v1.0 out there. Maybe it was all AI generated and they're hiding. I'm not sure it matters, to be honest.
But I do find it grating that every time somebody even suspects an LLM was involved, there is a rush of upvotes for "calling it out". This isn't rational thinking. It's not using data to make decisions, its not logical to assume all LLM-assisted writing is slop (even if some of it is), and it's actually not helpful in this case to somebody who is keen to learn zig to decide if this resource is useful or not: there are many programming tutorials written by human experts that are utterly useless, this might be a lot better.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
> 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here.
There is, actually,
You may copy the introduction to Pangram and it will say 100% AI generated.
> 2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless.
It does make it automatically worthless if the author claims it's hand made.
How am I supposed to trust this author if they just lie about things upfront? What worth does learning material have if it's written by a liar? How can I be sure the author isn't just lying with lots of information throughout the book?
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
I'm not sure what they expect, but to me Zig looks very much like C with a modern standard lib and slightly different syntax. This isn't groundbreaking, not a thought paradigm which should be that novel to most system engineers like for example OCaml could be. Stuff like this alienates people who want a technical justification for the use of a language.
There is nothing new under the Sun. However, some languages manifest as good rewrites of older languages. Rust is that for C++. Zig is that for C.
Rust is the small, beautiful language hiding inside of Modern C++. Ownership isn't new. It's the core tenet of RAII. Rust just pulls it out of the backwards-compatible kitchen sink and builds it into the type system. Rust is worth learning just so that you can fully experience that lens of software development.
Zig is Modern C development encapsulated in a new language. Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions. All realtime development has to rewrite their entire standard libraries, like with the EASTL.
On top of the great standard library design, you get comptime, native build scripts, (err)defer, error sets, builtin simd, and tons of other small but important ideas. It's just a really good language that knows exactly what it is and who its audience is.
I think that describing Zig as a "rewrite of C" (good or otherwise) is as helpful as describing Python as a rewrite of Fortran. Zig does share some things with C - the language is simple and values explicitness - but at its core is one of the most sophisticated (and novel) programming primitives we've ever seen: A general and flexible partial evaluation engine with access to reflection. That makes the similarities to C rather superficial. After all, Zig is as expressive as C++.
> Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
I think that is just a symptom of a broader mistake made by C++ and shared by Rust, which is a belief (that was, perhaps, reasonable in the eighties) that we could and should have a language that's good for both low-level and high-level programming, and that resulted in compromises that disappoint both goals.
I don't know man, Rust's borrowing semantics are pretty new under the sun, and actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift.
> Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
Funny. This was a great sell to me. I wonder why it isn’t the blurb. Maybe it isn’t a great sell to others.
The problem for me with so many of these languages is that they’re always eager to teach you how to write a loop when I couldn’t care less and would rather see the juice.
However, nowadays with comprehensive books like this, LLM tools can better produce good results for me as I try it out.
> Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
Rather, basing its entire personality around this philosophy is Zig's biggest mistake. If you want to pass around allocators in C++ or Rust, you can just go ahead and do that. But the reason people don't isn't because it's impossible in those languages, it's because the overwhelming majority of the time it's a lot of ceremony for no benefit.
Like, surely people see that in C itself there's nothing stopping anyone from passing around allocators, and yet almost nobody ever does. Ever wonder why that is?
Much of the book's copy appears to have been written by AI (despite the foreword statement that none of it was), which explains the hokey overenthusiasm and exaggerations.
As we know AI is at least as smart as the average human. It knows the Zeitgeist and thus adds “No AI used” in order to boost “credibility”. :) (“credibility” since AI is at least as smart the average human, for us in the know.)
For those who actually want to learn languages which are "fundamentally changing how you think about software", I'd recommend the Lisp family and APL family.
Zig is so novel that it's hard to find any language like it. Its similarity to C is superficial. AFAIK, it is the first language ever to rely on partial evaluation so extensively. Of course, partial evaluation itself is not new at all, but neither were touchscreens when the iPhone came out. The point wasn't that it had a touchscreen, but that it had almost nothing but. The manner and extent of Zig's use of partial evaluation are unprecedented. I have nothing against OCaml, but it is a variant of ML, a 1970s language, that many undergrads were taught at university in the nineties.
I'm not saying everyone should like Zig, but its design is revolutionary:
I guess comptime is a little different but yeah I wouldn't say it fundamentally changes how you think about software.
I wouldn't say that about OCaml either really though. It's not wildly different in the way that e.g. Lean's type system, or Rust's borrow checker or Haskell's purity is.
This looks fantastic. Pedagogically it makes sense to me, and I love this approach of not just teaching a language, but a paradigm (in this case, low-level systems programming), in a single text.
Zig got me excited when I stumbled into it about a year ago, but life got busy and then the io changes came along and I thought about holding off until things settled down - it's still a very young language.
But reading the first couple of chapters has piqued my interest in a language and the people who are working with it in a way I've not run into since I encountered Ruby in ~2006 (before Rails hit v1.0), I just hope the quality stays this high all the way through.
So many comments about the AI generation part. Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all.
Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
If the site would have said something like "We use AI to clean up our prose, but it was all audited thoroughly by a human after", I wouldn't have an issue. Even better if they shared their prompts.
Because AI gets things wrong, often, in ways that can be very difficult to catch. By their very nature LLMs write text that sounds plausible enough to bypass manual review (see https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...), so some find it best to avoid using it at all when writing documentation.
But all those "it's AI posts" are about the prose and "style", not the actual content. So even if (and that is a big if) the text was written using the help of AI (and there are many valid reasons to use it, e.g. if you're not a native speaker) that does not mean the content was written from AI and thus contains AI mistakes.
If it was so obviously written by AI then finding those mistakes should be easy?
>That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
No it isn't. My TI-83 is deterministic and will give me exactly what I ask for, and will always do so, and when someone uses it they need to understand the math first or otherwise the calculator is useless.
These AI models on the other hand don't care about correctness, by design don't give you deterministic answers, and the person asking the question might as well be a monkey as far as their own understanding of the subject matter goes. These models are if anything an anti-calculator.
As Dijkstra points out in his fantastic essay on the idiocy of natural language "computation", what you are doing is exactly not computation but a kind of medieval incantation. Computers were designed to render impossible precisely the nonsense that LLMs produce. The biggest idiot on earth will still get a correct result from the calculator because unlike the LLM it is based on boolean logic, not verbal or pictorial garbage.
Because the first thing you see when you click the link is "Zero AI" pasted under the most obviously AI-generated copy I've ever seen. It's just an insult to our intelligence, obviously we're gonna call OP out on this. Why lie like that?
It's funny how everyone has gaslit themselves into doubting their own intuitions on the most blatant specimen where it's not just a mere whiff of the reek but an overpowering pungency assaulting the senses at every turn, forcing themselves to exclaim "the Emperor's fart smells wonderful!"
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
It matters because, it irritates me to no end that I have to review AI generated content that a human did not verify before. I don't like being made to work in the guise of someone giving me free content.
> That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
A calculator exists solely for the realm of mathematics, where you can afford to more or less throw away the value of human input and overall craftsmanship.
That is not the case with something like this, which - while it leans in to engineering - is in effect viewed as a work of art by people who give a shit about the actual craft of writing software.
> Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
Agree. What matters is quality, regardless of what/who made it.
O.t.o.h., it is funny to see tech people here, that work on implementing technology, taking an approach so... Luddite and "anti-tech".
I agree man. I love the HN community but it seems a lot more cynical than usual :).
i think 90% of the comments were about the AI part rather than the actual product - which seems very cool and definitely took a lot of effort to put together.
I value human work and I do NOT value work that has been done with heavy AI usage.
Most AI things I've seen are slop, I instantly recognize AI songs for example. I just dont want anything to do with it. The uniqueness of creative work is lost with using AI.
An awful lot of commenters are convinced that it's AI-generated, despite explicit statements to the contrary. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right, but none of them currently have any proof stronger than vibes. It's like everyone has gaslit themselves into thinking that humans can't write well-structured neutral-tone docs any more.
This is not written in a neutral-tone at all! There is a lot of bland marketing speech that feels completely out of place. This is not how you write good technical literature.
Many people have already shown the hallucinated apis that is much stronger evidence than your "vibes".
I suppose the author may have deliberately added the "No AI assistance" notice - making sure all the hallucinated bugs are found via outraged developers raising tickets. Without that people may not even have bothered.
It's pretty incredible how much ground this covers! However, the ordering feels a little confusing to me.
One example is in chapter 1. It talks about symbol exporting based on platform type, without explaining ELF. This is before talking about while loops.
It's had some interesting nuggets so far, and I've followed along since I'm familiar with some of the broad strokes, but I can see it being confusing to someone new to systems programming.
It's really hard to believe this isn't AI generated, but today I was trying to use the HTTP server from std after the 0.15 changes, couldn't figure out how it's supposed to work until I've searched repos in Github. LLM's couldn't figure it out as well, they were stuck in a loop of changing/breaking things even further until they arrived at the solution of using the deprecated way. so I guess this is actually handwritten which is amazing because it looks like the best resource I've seen up until now for Zig
it's not only the size - it was pushed all at once, anonymously, using text that highly resembles that of an AI. I still think that some of the text is AI generated. perhaps not the code, but the wording of the text just reeks of AI
I've had the same experience as you with Zig. I quite love the idea of it Zig but the undocumented churn is a bit much. I wish they had auto generated docs that reflect the current state of the stdlib, at least. Even if it just listed the signatures with no commentary.
I was trying to solve a simple problem but Google, the official docs, and LLMs were all out of date. I eventually found what I needed in Zig's commit history, where they casually renamed something without updating the docs. It's been renamed once more apparently, still not reflected in the docs :shrugs:.
But you can tell your LLM to just go look at the source code (after checking it out so it doesn’t try 20s github requests). Always works like a charm for me.
It looks cool! No experience with Zig so can't comment on the accuracy, but I will take a look at it this week. Also a bit annoying that there is no PDF version that I could download as the website is pretty slow. After taking a look at the repository (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/tree/main), each page seems to be written in AsciiDoc, so I'll take a look about compiling a PDF version later today.
HOWTO: The text can be found per-chapter in `./pages/{chapter}.adoc` but each chapter includes code snippets found in a respective `./chapters-data/code/{chapter}/` subdirectory. So, perhaps a hacky way to do it but quite lazy to fully figure asciidoctor flags, created using a script a combined book.adoc that includes all others with `include::{chapter}.adoc` directives, then run `asciidoctor-pdf -a sourcedir=../chapters-data/code -r asciidoctor-diagram -o book.pdf ./pages/book.adoc`.
I agree, I love zig but the things that make me program differently are features like excellent enum/union support, defer and comptime, which aren't readily available in the other languages I tend to use (C++, Fortran and Python).
Hmm, the explanation of Allocators is much more detailed in the book, but I feel although more compact, it seems much more reasonable in the language reference. [0]
I'll keep exploring this book though, it does look very impressive.
The biggest red flag for me is the author hiding their name. If you wrote quality book about a programming language you are not hiding your identity from the world.
The repository also has a misconfigured .gitignore file which allowed them to check in some built executables into the repository.
This is something that I wouldn't judge beginners for, but someone claiming to be an expert writing a book on the topic should know how to configure a .gitignore for their particular language of expertise.
Very well done! wow! Thanks for this. Going through this now.
One comment: About the syntax highlighting, the dark blue for keywords against a black background is very difficult to read. And if you opt for the white background, the text becauses off white / grey which again is very difficult to read.
A nitpick about website: the top progress bar is kind of distracting (high-constrast color with animation). It's also unnecessary because there is already scrollbar on the right side.
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM.
Can the author... Convince me otherwise?
> This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a different kind of simplicity: the kind you earn by climbing through complexity and emerging with complete understanding on the other side.
> Welcome to the Zigbook. Your transformation starts now.
...
> You will know where every byte lives in memory, when the compiler executes your code, and what machine instructions your abstractions compile to. No hidden allocations. No mystery overhead. No surprises.
...
> This is not about memorizing syntax. This is about earning mastery.
Pretty clear it's all AI. The @zigbook account only has 1 activity prior to publishing this repo, and that's an issue where they mention "ai has made me too lazy": https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/272725
After reading the first five chapters, I'm leaning this way. Not because of a specific phrase, but because the pacing is way off. It's really strange to start with symbol exporting, then moving to while loops, then moving to slices. It just feels like a strange order. The "how it works" and "key insights" also feel like a GPT summarization. Maybe that's just a writing tic, but the combination of correct grammar with bad pacing isn't something I feel like a human writer has. Either you have neither (due to lack of practice), or both (because when you do a lot of writing you also pick up at least some ability to pace). Could be wrong though.
It's just an odd claim to make when it feels very much like AI generated content + publish the text anonymously. It's obviously possible to write like this without AI, but I can't remember reading something like this that wasn't written by AI.
It doesn't take away from the fact that someone used a bunch of time and effort on this project.
To be clear, I did not dismiss the project or question its value - simply questioned this claim as my experience tells me otherwise and they make a big deal out of it being human written and "No AI" in multiple places.
I was pretty skeptical too, but it looks legit to me. I've been doing Zig off and on for several years, and have read through the things I feel like I have a good understanding of (though I'm not working on the compiler, contributing to the language, etc.) and they are explained correctly in a logical/thoughtful way. I also work with LLMs a ton at work, and you'd have to spoon-feed the model to get outputs this cohesive.
Keep in mind that pangram flags many hand-written things as AI.
> I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it. Both came back as ai with 99.9% confidence. Both stories were written in 2013.
> I've been doing some extensive testing in the last 24 hours and I can confidently say that I believe the 1 in 10,000 rate is bullshit. I've been an author for over a decade and have dozens of books at hand that I can throw at this from years prior to AI even existing in anywhere close to its current capacity. Most of the time, that content is detected as AI-created, even when it's not.
> Pangram is saying EVERYTHING I have hand written for school is AI. I've had to rewrite my paper four times already and it still says 99.9% AI even though I didn't even use AI for the research.
> I've written an overview of a project plan based on a brief and, after reading an article on AI detection, I thought it would be interesting to run it through AI detection sites to see where my writing winds up. All of them, with the exception of Pangram, flagged the writing as 100% written by a human. Pangram has "99% confidence" of it being written by AI.
I generally don't give startups my contact info, but if folks don't mind doing so, I recommend running pangram on some of their polished hand written stuff.
Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility. You can write stuff yourself and use an LLM to enhance the reading flow. Especially for non-native speakers it is immensely helpful to do so. Doesn't mean that the content is "AI-generated". The essence is still written by a human.
Clarity in writing comes mostly from the logical structure of ideas presented. Writing can have grammar/style errors but still be clear. If the structure is bad after translation, then it was bad before translation too.
I'm not sure, but I try my best to assume good faith / be optimistic.
This one hit a sore spot b/c many people are putting time and effort into writing things themselves and to claim "no ai use" if it is untrue is not fair.
If the author had a good explanation... Idk not a native English writer and used an LLM to translate and that included the "no LLMs used" call-out and that was translated improperly etc
To me it's another specimen in the "demonstrating personhood" problem that predates LLMs. e.g. Someone replies to you on HN or twitter or wherever, are they a real person worth engaging with? Sometimes it'll literally be a person but their behavior is indistinguishable from a bot, that's their problem. Convincing signs of life include account age, past writing samples, and topic diversity.
IMO HN should add a guideline about not insinuating things were written by AI. It degrades the quality of the site similarly to many of the existing rules.
Arguably it would be covered by some of the existing rules, but it's become such a common occurrence that it may need singling out.
What degrades conversation is to lie about something being not AI when it actually is. People pointing out the fraud are right to do so.
One thing I've learned is that comment sections are a vital defense on AI content spreading, because while you might fool some people, it's hard to fool all the people. There have been times I've been fooled by AI only to see in the comments the consensus that it is AI. So now it's my standard practice to check comments to see what others are saying.
If mods put a rule into place that muzzles this community when it comes to alerting others a fraud is being affected, that just makes this place a target for AI scams.
You can't just say that a linguistic style "proves" or even "suggests" AI. Remember, AI is just spitting out things its seen before elsewhere. There's plenty of other texts I've seen with this sort of writing style, written long before AI was around.
Can I also ask: so what if it is or it isn't?
While AI slop is infuriating, and the bubble hype is maddening, I'm not sure every time somebody sees some content they don't like the style of we just call out it "must" be AI, and debate if it is or it isn't is not at least as maddening. It feels like all content published now gets debated like this, and I'm definitely not enjoying it.
You can be skeptical of anything but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest that it's generated text.
As to why it matters, doesn't it matter when people lie? Aren't you worried about the veracity of the text if it's not only generated but was presented otherwise? That wouldn't erode your trust that the author reviewed the text and corrected any hallucinations even by an iota?
My statement refers to this claim: "I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM."
The hypocrisy and entitlement mentality that prevails in this discussion is disgusting. My recommendation to the fellow below that he should write a book himself (instead of complaining) was even flagged, demonstrating once again the abuse of this feature to suppress other, completely legitimate opinions.
The book content itself is deliberately free of AI-generated prose. Drafts may start anywhere, but final text should be reviewed, edited, and owned by a human contributor.
There is more specificity around AI use in the project README. There may have been LLMs used during drafting, which has led to the "hallmarks" sticking around that some commenters are pointing out.
That statement is honestly self-contradictory. If a draft was AI-generated and then reviewed, edited, and owned by a human contributor, then the parts which survived reviewing and editing verbatim were still AI-generated...
Why do you care, if a human reviewed and edited it, someone filtered it to make sure it’s correct. It’s validated to be correct, that is the main point.
Welp. I wish I had read the comments first to discover that this is AI generated. On the other hand, I got to experience the content without bias.
I opted to give it a try instead of reading the comments and the book was arranged in a super strange way where it's discussing concepts that a majority of programmers would never be concerned with when starting out with learning a language. It's very different to learn about some of these concepts if you are reading a language doc in order to work on the language itself. But if you want to learn how to use the language, something like:
> Choose between std.debug.print, unbuffered writers, and buffered stdout depending on the output channel and performance needs.
is absolutely never going to be something you dump into chapter 1. I skimmed through a few chapters from there and it's blocks of stuff thrown in randomly. The introduction to the if conditional throws in Zig Intermediate Representation with absolutely no explanation of what it is and why it's even being discussed.
Came here to comment that this has been written pretty poorly or just targets a very niche audience and now I discover it's slop. What a waste of time. The one thing AI was supposed to save.
This source is really hard to trust. AI or not, the author has done no work to really establish epistemological reliability and transparency. The entire book was published at once with no history, no evidence of the improvement and iteration it takes to create quality work, and no reference as to the creative process or collaborators or anything. And on top of that, the author does not seem to really have any other presence or history in the community. I love Zig, and have wanted more quality learning materials to exist. This, unfortunately, does not seem to be it.
For books that are published in more traditional manners, digital or paper, there is normally a credible publisher, editors, sometimes a foreword from a known figure, reviews from critics or experts in the field, and often a bio about the author explaining who they are and why they wrote the book etc. These different elements are all signals of reliability, they help to convey that the content is more than just fluff around an attention-grabbing title, that it has depth and quality and holds up. The whole publishing business has put massive effort into establishing and building these markers of trust.
The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on:
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
“Not just X - Y” constructions.
> By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand it deeply enough to teach others, contribute to the ecosystem, and build systems that reflect your complete mastery.
More not just X - Y constructions with parallelism.
Even the “not made with AI” banner seems AI generated! Note the 3 item parallelism.
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I don’t have anything against AI generated content. I’m just confused what’s going on here!
EDIT: after scanning the contents of the book itself I don’t believe it’s AI generated - perhaps it’s just the intro?
EDIT again: no, I’ve swung back to the camp of mostly AI generated. I would believe it if you told me the author wrote it by hand and then used AI to trim the style, but “no AI” seems hard to believe. The flow charts in particular stand out like a sore thumb - they just don’t have the kind of content a human would put in flow charts.
Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate.
To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.
But you didn't write that "Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are not just examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college; they're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate."
I mean maybe the content is not AI generated (I wouldn’t say it is) but the website does have an AI generated smell to it. From the colors to the shapes, it looks like Sonnet or Opus definitely made some tweaks.
Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong. You can't tell something is AI generated only because it uses "not just X - Y" constructions. I mean, the reason AI text often uses it is because it's common in the training material. So of course you're going to see it everywhere.
Find me some text from pre-AI that uses so many of these constructions in such close proximity if it’s really so easy - I don’t think you’ll have much luck. Good authors have many tactics in their rhetorical bag of tricks. They don’t just keep using the same one over and over.
I'm a C/C++ developer. I write production code in MQL5 (C-like) and Go, and I use Python for research and Automation. I can work with other languages as well, but I keep asking myself: why should I learn Zig?
If I want to do system or network programming, my current stack already covers those needs — and adding Rust would probably make it even more future-proof. But Zig? This is a genuine question, because the "Zig book" doesn’t give me much insight into what are the real use cases for Zig.
If you're doing it for real-world values, keep doing that. But if you want traction, writing in a "fancy" language is almost a requirement. "A database engine written in Zig" or "A search engine written in Zig" sounds much flashier and guarantees attention. Look at this book: it is defintely an AI slop, but it stays at the top spot, and there's barely any discussion about the language itself.
Enough rant, now back on some reasons for why choosing Zig:
- Cross platform tools with tiny binaries (Zig's built in cross compilation avoids the complex setup needed with C)
- System utilities or daemons (explicit error handling instead of silent patterns common in C)
- Embedded or bare metal work (predictable rules and fewer footguns than raw C)
- Interfacing with existing C libraries (direct header import without manual binding code)
- Build and deployment tooling (single build system that replaces Make and extra scripts)
For my personal usage, I'm working on replacing Docker builds for some Go projects that rely heavily on CGO by using `zig cc`. I'm not using the Zig language itself, but this could be considered one of its use cases.
> For my personal usage, I'm working on replacing Docker builds for some Go projects that rely heavily on CGO by using `zig cc`. I'm not using the Zig language itself, but this could be considered one of its use cases.
Hm, i can see a good use case when we want to have reproducible builds from go packages, including its C extensions. Is that your use case, or are you aiming for multi-environment support of your compiled "CGO extensions"
My take on this as someone that professionally coded in C, C++, Go, Rust, Python (and former darlings of the past) is that Zig gives you the sort of control that C does with enough niceties as to not break into other idioms like C++ and Rust does in terms of complexity.
Rust "breaks" on some low level stuff when you need to deal with unsafe (another idiom) or when you need to rely on proc-macros to have a component system like Bevy does. Nothing wrong with this, is just that is hard to cover all the ground.
The same happens with C++, having to grow to adapt to cover a lot of ground it ended up with lots of features and also with some complexity burden.
In my experience with Zig, you have the feeling of thinking more about systems engineering using the language to help you implement that without resorting to all sort of language idioms and complexity. It feels more intuitive in way giving it tries to stay simple and get out of your way. Its a more "unsurprising" programming language in terms of what you end up getting after you code into it, in terms of understanding exactly how the code will run.
In terms of ecosystem, lets say you have Java lunch, C lunch and C++ lunch (established languages) in their domains. Go is eating some Java(C#, etc..) lunch and in smaller domains some C++ lunch. Rust is in the same heavy weight category as Go, but it can eat more C++ lunch than Go ever could.
Now Zig will be able to compete in ways that it can really be an alternative to C core values, which other programming languages failed to achieve. So it will be aimed at things C and C++ are doing now and where Go and Rust wont be good candidates.
If you used Rust long enough you can see that while it can cover almost all ground its not a good fit for lower level stuff or at least not without some compromises either in performance or complexity (affecting productivity). So its more in the same family as C++ in terms of what you pay for (again nothing wrong with that, is just that some complex codebases will need a good amount of man-hours effort in the same line as C++ does).
Don't get me wrong, Rust can be good at low level stuff too, is just that some of its choices make you as a developer pay a price for those niceties when you need to get your hands dirty in specific domains.
With Zig you fell more focused on the machine with less abstractions as in C but with enough goodies that can make even the most die-hard C developer think about using it (something C++ and Rust never managed to do it).
So i think Zig will have its place in the sun as Rust does. But I see Rust taking more the place where Java used to be (together with Go) + some things that were made in C++ where Zig will be more focused on system and low level stuff.
Modern C++ will still be around, but Rust and Zig will used more and more where languages like C and C++ used to be the only real contenders, which is quite good in my POV.
What will happen is that Rust and Zig programmers might overlap and offer tools in the same area (see Bun and Deno for instance) but the tools will excel on their own way and with time it will be more clear into which domain Rust and Zig are better at.
"The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices."
Such a bald-faced and utterly disgusting lie. The introduction itself ticks every single flag of AI generated slop. AI is trained well on corporate marketing brochures.
I don't know any of you. But Zig has opened way big door for system programming for people like me who has never done that before. And, Zig code looks (for a guy comes from curly braces language) easier to understand with really small learning curve.
Yeah, you should. Zig is a trending language right now, and in the coming years many projects are likely to be rewritten in Zig instead of Rust (often referred to as "riiz").
I don't think you need to learn anything! Especially if you like Rust and it works for your projects.
Not an expert but Zig seems like a modern C - you manage memory yourself. I guess if you want more modern features than C offers, and actively don't want the type-system sort of features that Zig has (or are grumpy about compile times, etc) then it's there for you to try!
Partially agree on this, std lib/crates and ease of use do make a difference (this is not even the main reason to use Rust), though Rust certainly has its own headaches. (Imagine searching for someone's implementation of HashedMap on github or using dedicated packages like glib, when you get it easily at crates.io). Again this is subjective based on use cases.
It was very hard to find a link to the table of contents… then I tried opening it and the link didn’t work. I’m on iOS. I’d have loved to take a look quickly what’s in the book…
For me, personally, any new language needs to have a "why." If a new language can't convince me in 1-2 sentences why I need to learn it and how it's going to improve software development, as a whole, it's 99% bs and not worth my time.
DHH does a great job of clarifying this during his podcast with Lex Friedman. The "why" is immediately clear and one can decide for themselves if it's what they're looking for. I have not yet seen a "why" for Zig.
For many languages I agree, especially languages with steep learning curves (e.g. Rust, Haskell). But zig is dead fast to learn so I'd recommend just nipping through Ziglings and seeing if its a language you want to add to the toolbox. It took me only about 10 hours to pick up and get used to and it has immediately replaced C and C++ in my personal projects. It's really just a safer, more ergonomic C. If you already love C, I maybe wouldn't bother.
Haha the fucking garbage. Before AI, before the internet, this overexaggerated, hokey prose was written by scummy humans and it came exclusively in porn magazines along with the x-ray specs and sea-monkey fishtanks.
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.
The name seems odd to me, because I think it's fine to describe things as a digital brain, especially when the word brain doesn't only apply to humans but to organisms as simple as a 959 cell roundworm with 302 neurons.
> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get started are now in your way.
> Zig takes a different path. It reveals complexity—and then gives you the tools to master it.
> This book will take you from Hello, world! to building systems that cross-compile to any platform, manage memory with surgical precision, and generate code at compile time. You will learn not just how Zig works, but why it works the way it does. Every allocation will be explicit. Every control path will be visible. Every abstraction will be precise, not vague.
But sadly people like the prompter of this book will lie and pretend to have written things themselves that they did not. First three paragraphs by the way, and a bingo for every sign of AI.
I had a discussion on some other submission a couple of weeks back, where several people were arguing "it's obviously AI generated" (the style btw was completely different to this, quite a few explicitives...). When I put the the text in 5 random AI detectors the argument who except for one (which said mixed, 10% AI or so) all said 100% human I was being down voted and the argument became "AI detection tools can detect AI" but somehow the people claim there are 100% clear telltale signs which says it's AI (why those detection tools can detect them is baffling to me).
I have the feeling that the whole "it's AI" stick has become a synonym for I don't like this writing style.
It really does not add to the discussion. If people would post immediately "there's spelling mistakes this is rubbish", they would rightfully get down voted, but somehow saying "it's AI" is acceptable. Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it? So what is your point?
Even for content that isn’t directly composed by llm, I bet there’d be value in an alerting system that could ingest your docs and code+commits and flag places where behaviour referenced by docs has changed and may need to be updated.
This kind of “workflow” llm use has the potential to deliver a lot of value even to a scenario where the final product is human-composed.
Meh. I mean, who's it for? People should be adopting the stance that everything is AI on the internet and make decisions from there. If you start trusting people telling you that they're not using AI, you're setting yourself up to be conned.
Edit: So I wrote this before I read the rest of the thread where everyone is pointing out this is indeed probably AI, so right of the bat the "AI-free" label is conning people.
I guess now the trend is Zig. The era of Javascript framework has come to end. After that was AI tend. And now we have Zig and its allocators, especially the arena allocator.
Even if what you say is true, people make bets on new tech all the time. You show up early so you can capture mindshare. If Zig becomes mainstream then this could be the standard book that everyone recommends. Not just that, it’s more likely the language succeeds if it has good learning materials - that’s an outcome the author would love.
> people make bets on new tech all the time. You show up early so you can capture mindshare.
I got on the ground floor with elixir. got my startup built on it. now we have 3 fulltime engineers working on elixir fulltime. None of that would have happenned if I looked at a young language and said "its not used in the real world"
"nobody uses in the real world yet" is uncharitable, as Zig is used in many real-world projects (Bun and Tigerbeetle are written in Zig, for example). But there's value being at the forefront of technologies that you think are going to explode soon, so that's how people find time and energy, I guess.
SAME. I was looking for a donation button myself! I've paid for worse quality instructional material. this is just the sort of thing I'm happy to support
I submitted this and unfortunately it is likely AI generated. The authors github history suggests it at the very least, along with seemingly misunderstanding a reference to a Zig language feature (labeled blocks - https://zig.guide/language-basics/labelled-blocks/) in the project issues (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/4).
I’m not sure how much value is to be had here, and it’s unfortunate the author wasn’t honest about how it was created.
I wish I wouldn’t have submitted this so quickly but I was excited about the new resource and the chapters I dug into looked good and accurate.
I worry about whether this will be maintained, if there are hallucinations, and if it’s worth investing time into.
> if there are hallucinations
Plenty. I assumed that the code examples had been cleaned up manually, so instead I looked at a few random "Caveats, alternatives, edge cases" sections. These contain errors typically made by LLMs, such as suggesting to use features that doesn't exist (std.mem.terminated), are non-public (argvToScriptCommandLineWindows) or removed (std.BoundedArray). These sections also surfaces irrelevant stdlib and compiler implementation details.
This looks like more data towards the "LLMs were involved" side of the argument, but as my other comment pointed out, that might not be an issue.
We're used to errata and fixing up stuff produced by humans, so if we can fix this resource, it might actually be valuable and more useful than anything that existed before it. Maybe.
One of my things with AI is that if we assume it is there to replace humans, we are always going to find it disappointing. If we use it as a tool to augment, we might find it very useful.
A colleague used to describe it (long before GenAI, when we were talking about technology automation more generally) as following: "we're not trying to build a super intelligent killer robot to replace Deidre in accounts. Deidre knows things. We just want to give her better tools".
So, it seems like this needs some editing, but it still has value if we want it to have value. I'd rather this was fixed than thrown away (I'm biased, I want to learn systems programming in zig and want a good resource to do so), and yes the author should have been more upfront about it, and asked for reviewers, but we have it now. What to do?
2 replies →
We really are in the trenches. How is this garbage #1 on the front page of *HN* right now?
Even if it was totally legitimate, the "landing page" (its design) and the headline ("Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software."?????) should discredit it immediately.
When was the front page of HN that impressive anyways? It has always been latest fad and the first to comment "the right thing to say" gets rewarded with fake internet points.
I imagine a lot of people didn't even click. They see free Zig materials and upvote.
I made a comment about it obviously being AI generated, and my comment[1] was quickly downvoted, and there were comments explaining how I was obviously incorrect ("Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong."). My comment was pushed under many comments saying the book was a fantastic resource. Extremely strange.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45948608
Yes, this should immediately set off all BS alarms.
Created https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/18
Aaaand it's gone!
6 replies →
That issue has been deleted. In addition, the author has tagged other issues with labels that are not appropriate for the mission of being a core zig learning resource:
https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/25
"AI ALLEGATION" and "RE**ED COMPLAINT"
'zigbook' also seems to be using other accounts as sock puppets: 'zigglang' and 'zig-vm'
I seem to remember seeing this a week or two ago, and it was very obviously AI generated. (For those unfamiliar with Zig, AI is awful at generating Zig code: small sample dataset and the language updates faster than the models.) Reading it today I had a hard time spotting issues. So I think the author put a fair amount of work into cleaning up hallucinations and fixing inaccuracies.
I checked my search history and I was thinking of a different website (zig toolbox, not linking intentionally, because it's purely AI slop).
That github exchange is hilarious and bizarre. It's very obviously people talking to not people.
The exchange on https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/issues/4? If so, your botdar is better than mine. While the project owner doesn't understand the issue at first, they seem to get it in the end. The exchange looks sort of normal to me, but then I guess I am doomed to be fooled regularly in our new regime.
Some text in the book itself is odd, but I'll be a guinea pig and try to learn zig from this book and see how far I get.
1 reply →
Ok, but even if it's AI generated and won't be maintained or contains errors, I'm not sure that warrants it being _flagged_ on HN.
AI is really great at creating superficial signals. And most people just judge things by superficial signal.
I literally just came across this resource a couple of days ago and was going to go through it this week as a way to get up to speed on Zig. Glad this popped up on HN so I can avoid the AI hallucinations steering me off track.
Are you sure? Right on https://www.zigbook.net/chapters/00__zigbook_introduction it says:
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
The author could of course be lying. But why would you use AI and then very explicitly call out that you’re not using AI?
> Are you sure?
There are too many things off about the origin and author to not be suspicious of it. I’m not sure what the motivation was, but it seems likely. I do think they used the Zig source code heavily, and put together a pipeline of some sort feeding relevant context into the LLM, or maybe just codex or w/e instructed to read in the source.
It seems like it had to take quite a bit of effort to make, and is interesting on its own. And I would trust it more if I knew how it was made (LLMs or not).
As another suspicious data point see this issue by the author: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45952581 found some concrete issues
Because AI content is at minimum controversial nowadays. And if you are ok with lying about authorship then It is not further down the pole to embelish the lie a bit more
I also submitted it to Reddit before realizing it largely was AI generated
I looked into that project issue your referencing. There is absolutely zero mentioning of zig labeled blocks in that exchange. There is no misunderstanding or confusion whatsoever.
It's a formatting bug with zig labeled blocks and the response was a screenshot of code without one, saying (paraphrasing) lgtm it must be on your end.
See the first screenshot in the exchange with newlines breaking up the label and block - and maybe this for proper formatting https://zig.guide/language-basics/labelled-blocks/
I'd love it if we can stop the "Oh, this might be AI, so it's probably crap" thing that has taken over HN recently.
1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here.
2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless. In fact, this looks pretty decent as a resource. Producing learning material is one of the few areas we can likely be confident that AI can add value, if the tools are used carefully - it's a lot better at that than producing working software, because synthesising knowledge seen elsewhere and moving it into a new relatable paradigm (which is what LLMs do, and excel at), is the job of teaching.
3. If it's maintained or not is neither here nor there - can it provide value to somebody right now, today? If yes, it's worth sharing today. It might not be in 6 months.
4. If there are hallucinations, we'll figure them out and prove the claim it is AI generated one way or another, and decide the overall value. If there is one hallucination per paragraph, it's a problem. If it's one every 5 chapters, it might be, but probably isn't. If it's one in 62 chapters, it's beating the error rate of human writers quite some way.
Yes, the GitHub history looks "off", but maybe they didn't want to develop in public and just wanted to get a clean v1.0 out there. Maybe it was all AI generated and they're hiding. I'm not sure it matters, to be honest.
But I do find it grating that every time somebody even suspects an LLM was involved, there is a rush of upvotes for "calling it out". This isn't rational thinking. It's not using data to make decisions, its not logical to assume all LLM-assisted writing is slop (even if some of it is), and it's actually not helpful in this case to somebody who is keen to learn zig to decide if this resource is useful or not: there are many programming tutorials written by human experts that are utterly useless, this might be a lot better.
> 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here.
There is, actually, You may copy the introduction to Pangram and it will say 100% AI generated.
4 replies →
> 2. Even if it were AI generated, that does not automatically make it worthless.
It does make it automatically worthless if the author claims it's hand made. How am I supposed to trust this author if they just lie about things upfront? What worth does learning material have if it's written by a liar? How can I be sure the author isn't just lying with lots of information throughout the book?
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
I'm not sure what they expect, but to me Zig looks very much like C with a modern standard lib and slightly different syntax. This isn't groundbreaking, not a thought paradigm which should be that novel to most system engineers like for example OCaml could be. Stuff like this alienates people who want a technical justification for the use of a language.
There is nothing new under the Sun. However, some languages manifest as good rewrites of older languages. Rust is that for C++. Zig is that for C.
Rust is the small, beautiful language hiding inside of Modern C++. Ownership isn't new. It's the core tenet of RAII. Rust just pulls it out of the backwards-compatible kitchen sink and builds it into the type system. Rust is worth learning just so that you can fully experience that lens of software development.
Zig is Modern C development encapsulated in a new language. Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions. All realtime development has to rewrite their entire standard libraries, like with the EASTL.
On top of the great standard library design, you get comptime, native build scripts, (err)defer, error sets, builtin simd, and tons of other small but important ideas. It's just a really good language that knows exactly what it is and who its audience is.
I think that describing Zig as a "rewrite of C" (good or otherwise) is as helpful as describing Python as a rewrite of Fortran. Zig does share some things with C - the language is simple and values explicitness - but at its core is one of the most sophisticated (and novel) programming primitives we've ever seen: A general and flexible partial evaluation engine with access to reflection. That makes the similarities to C rather superficial. After all, Zig is as expressive as C++.
> Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
I think that is just a symptom of a broader mistake made by C++ and shared by Rust, which is a belief (that was, perhaps, reasonable in the eighties) that we could and should have a language that's good for both low-level and high-level programming, and that resulted in compromises that disappoint both goals.
8 replies →
I don't know man, Rust's borrowing semantics are pretty new under the sun, and actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift.
Zig is nice too, but it's not that.
45 replies →
> Most importantly, it dodges Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
Funny. This was a great sell to me. I wonder why it isn’t the blurb. Maybe it isn’t a great sell to others.
The problem for me with so many of these languages is that they’re always eager to teach you how to write a loop when I couldn’t care less and would rather see the juice.
However, nowadays with comprehensive books like this, LLM tools can better produce good results for me as I try it out.
Thank you.
1 reply →
>Rust is that for C++
No it's not. Rust has roots in functional languages. It is completely orthoganol to C++.
3 replies →
> Rust and C++'s biggest mistake, not passing allocators into containers and functions
Rather, basing its entire personality around this philosophy is Zig's biggest mistake. If you want to pass around allocators in C++ or Rust, you can just go ahead and do that. But the reason people don't isn't because it's impossible in those languages, it's because the overwhelming majority of the time it's a lot of ceremony for no benefit.
Like, surely people see that in C itself there's nothing stopping anyone from passing around allocators, and yet almost nobody ever does. Ever wonder why that is?
Much of the book's copy appears to have been written by AI (despite the foreword statement that none of it was), which explains the hokey overenthusiasm and exaggerations.
As we know AI is at least as smart as the average human. It knows the Zeitgeist and thus adds “No AI used” in order to boost “credibility”. :) (“credibility” since AI is at least as smart the average human, for us in the know.)
That's ok, in the near future nobody will actually read this book. AI will be reading it. This is training data.
For those who actually want to learn languages which are "fundamentally changing how you think about software", I'd recommend the Lisp family and APL family.
I'd also throw Erlang/Elixir out there. And I really wished Elm wasn't such a trainwreck of a project...
8 replies →
And Prolog as well.
And Forth.
And 6502 assembly. ;)
And SNOBOL.
And Icon.
And ...
Am I correct that you can essentially "learn APL without learning APL" by just learning Numpy / Pytorch?
I looked at array languages briefly, and my impression was that"ooh this is just Numpy but weirder."
2 replies →
Zig is so novel that it's hard to find any language like it. Its similarity to C is superficial. AFAIK, it is the first language ever to rely on partial evaluation so extensively. Of course, partial evaluation itself is not new at all, but neither were touchscreens when the iPhone came out. The point wasn't that it had a touchscreen, but that it had almost nothing but. The manner and extent of Zig's use of partial evaluation are unprecedented. I have nothing against OCaml, but it is a variant of ML, a 1970s language, that many undergrads were taught at university in the nineties.
I'm not saying everyone should like Zig, but its design is revolutionary:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45852774
I guess comptime is a little different but yeah I wouldn't say it fundamentally changes how you think about software.
I wouldn't say that about OCaml either really though. It's not wildly different in the way that e.g. Lean's type system, or Rust's borrow checker or Haskell's purity is.
D has similar comptime capabilities if I recall correctly and proceeds Zig by almost 2 decades or so.
2 replies →
> It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
> I'm not sure what they expect, but to me Zig looks very much like C
Yes. I think people should sincerely stop with this kind of wording.
That makes Zig looks like some kind of cult.
Technically speaking, Zig democratized the concept of imperative compile time meta-programming (which is an excellent thing).
For everything else, this is mainly reuse and cherry pick from other languages.
Zig community really tries to match Rust one in terms of cult resemblance.
Did it occur to you that Rust and Zig might actually be very good?
3 replies →
People that consider other people that are excited about something "culty" are usually people that themselves are excited by absolutely nothing.
2 replies →
This looks fantastic. Pedagogically it makes sense to me, and I love this approach of not just teaching a language, but a paradigm (in this case, low-level systems programming), in a single text.
Zig got me excited when I stumbled into it about a year ago, but life got busy and then the io changes came along and I thought about holding off until things settled down - it's still a very young language.
But reading the first couple of chapters has piqued my interest in a language and the people who are working with it in a way I've not run into since I encountered Ruby in ~2006 (before Rails hit v1.0), I just hope the quality stays this high all the way through.
> Pedagogically it makes sense to me
It does not. It dives into compiler details on chapter 01, and smells heavily AI (not in a good way) as others have pointed out
So many comments about the AI generation part. Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all.
Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)
Because site site explicitly says:
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
If the site would have said something like "We use AI to clean up our prose, but it was all audited thoroughly by a human after", I wouldn't have an issue. Even better if they shared their prompts.
Exactly. Hard to trust the contents of a book that starts with a lie.
> Why does it matter?
Because AI gets things wrong, often, in ways that can be very difficult to catch. By their very nature LLMs write text that sounds plausible enough to bypass manual review (see https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...), so some find it best to avoid using it at all when writing documentation.
But all those "it's AI posts" are about the prose and "style", not the actual content. So even if (and that is a big if) the text was written using the help of AI (and there are many valid reasons to use it, e.g. if you're not a native speaker) that does not mean the content was written from AI and thus contains AI mistakes.
If it was so obviously written by AI then finding those mistakes should be easy?
1 reply →
Humans get things wrong too.
Quality prose usually only becomes that after many reviews.
10 replies →
>That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
No it isn't. My TI-83 is deterministic and will give me exactly what I ask for, and will always do so, and when someone uses it they need to understand the math first or otherwise the calculator is useless.
These AI models on the other hand don't care about correctness, by design don't give you deterministic answers, and the person asking the question might as well be a monkey as far as their own understanding of the subject matter goes. These models are if anything an anti-calculator.
As Dijkstra points out in his fantastic essay on the idiocy of natural language "computation", what you are doing is exactly not computation but a kind of medieval incantation. Computers were designed to render impossible precisely the nonsense that LLMs produce. The biggest idiot on earth will still get a correct result from the calculator because unlike the LLM it is based on boolean logic, not verbal or pictorial garbage.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...
Because the first thing you see when you click the link is "Zero AI" pasted under the most obviously AI-generated copy I've ever seen. It's just an insult to our intelligence, obviously we're gonna call OP out on this. Why lie like that?
It's funny how everyone has gaslit themselves into doubting their own intuitions on the most blatant specimen where it's not just a mere whiff of the reek but an overpowering pungency assaulting the senses at every turn, forcing themselves to exclaim "the Emperor's fart smells wonderful!"
1 reply →
If I wanted an AI book I would just prompt an LLM for it.
It matters because, it irritates me to no end that I have to review AI generated content that a human did not verify before. I don't like being made to work in the guise of someone giving me free content.
> That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
A calculator exists solely for the realm of mathematics, where you can afford to more or less throw away the value of human input and overall craftsmanship.
That is not the case with something like this, which - while it leans in to engineering - is in effect viewed as a work of art by people who give a shit about the actual craft of writing software.
[dead]
> Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.
Agree. What matters is quality, regardless of what/who made it.
O.t.o.h., it is funny to see tech people here, that work on implementing technology, taking an approach so... Luddite and "anti-tech".
I agree man. I love the HN community but it seems a lot more cynical than usual :).
i think 90% of the comments were about the AI part rather than the actual product - which seems very cool and definitely took a lot of effort to put together.
If you believed that you wouldn't explicitly say there was no AI generated content at all, you'd let it speak for itself.
Insecurity, that's why.
I too have this feeling sometimes. It's a coping mechanism. I don't know why we have this but I guess we have to see past it and adapt to reality.
I value human work and I do NOT value work that has been done with heavy AI usage. Most AI things I've seen are slop, I instantly recognize AI songs for example. I just dont want anything to do with it. The uniqueness of creative work is lost with using AI.
> Why does it matter?
I am just a human supremacist.
An awful lot of commenters are convinced that it's AI-generated, despite explicit statements to the contrary. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right, but none of them currently have any proof stronger than vibes. It's like everyone has gaslit themselves into thinking that humans can't write well-structured neutral-tone docs any more.
This is not written in a neutral-tone at all! There is a lot of bland marketing speech that feels completely out of place. This is not how you write good technical literature.
Many people have already shown the hallucinated apis that is much stronger evidence than your "vibes".
I suppose the author may have deliberately added the "No AI assistance" notice - making sure all the hallucinated bugs are found via outraged developers raising tickets. Without that people may not even have bothered.
It's pretty incredible how much ground this covers! However, the ordering feels a little confusing to me.
One example is in chapter 1. It talks about symbol exporting based on platform type, without explaining ELF. This is before talking about while loops.
It's had some interesting nuggets so far, and I've followed along since I'm familiar with some of the broad strokes, but I can see it being confusing to someone new to systems programming.
It's really hard to believe this isn't AI generated, but today I was trying to use the HTTP server from std after the 0.15 changes, couldn't figure out how it's supposed to work until I've searched repos in Github. LLM's couldn't figure it out as well, they were stuck in a loop of changing/breaking things even further until they arrived at the solution of using the deprecated way. so I guess this is actually handwritten which is amazing because it looks like the best resource I've seen up until now for Zig
> It's really hard to believe this isn't AI generated
Case of a person who is relying on LLMs so much he cannot imagine doing something big by themselves.
it's not only the size - it was pushed all at once, anonymously, using text that highly resembles that of an AI. I still think that some of the text is AI generated. perhaps not the code, but the wording of the text just reeks of AI
12 replies →
I've had the same experience as you with Zig. I quite love the idea of it Zig but the undocumented churn is a bit much. I wish they had auto generated docs that reflect the current state of the stdlib, at least. Even if it just listed the signatures with no commentary.
I was trying to solve a simple problem but Google, the official docs, and LLMs were all out of date. I eventually found what I needed in Zig's commit history, where they casually renamed something without updating the docs. It's been renamed once more apparently, still not reflected in the docs :shrugs:.
Wait, doesn't `zig std` launch the autogenerated docs?
1 reply →
But you can tell your LLM to just go look at the source code (after checking it out so it doesn’t try 20s github requests). Always works like a charm for me.
It looks cool! No experience with Zig so can't comment on the accuracy, but I will take a look at it this week. Also a bit annoying that there is no PDF version that I could download as the website is pretty slow. After taking a look at the repository (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/tree/main), each page seems to be written in AsciiDoc, so I'll take a look about compiling a PDF version later today.
If there is a PDF version, please remember to give me one. Thank you in advance.
zigbook.pdf => https://files.catbox.moe/gobtw7.pdf
HOWTO: The text can be found per-chapter in `./pages/{chapter}.adoc` but each chapter includes code snippets found in a respective `./chapters-data/code/{chapter}/` subdirectory. So, perhaps a hacky way to do it but quite lazy to fully figure asciidoctor flags, created using a script a combined book.adoc that includes all others with `include::{chapter}.adoc` directives, then run `asciidoctor-pdf -a sourcedir=../chapters-data/code -r asciidoctor-diagram -o book.pdf ./pages/book.adoc`.
> [Learning Zig] is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
Learning LISP, Fortran, APL, Perl, or really any language that is different from what you’re used to, will also do this for you.
I'd add Prolog to that list; but Fortran and Perl aren't all that different from other procedural languages.
Kind of, Perl was one of the first languages to bring FP to the masses, while Lisp and ML languages were hardly looked up by them.
See https://hop.perl.plover.com/book/
1 reply →
I agree, I love zig but the things that make me program differently are features like excellent enum/union support, defer and comptime, which aren't readily available in the other languages I tend to use (C++, Fortran and Python).
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
Written by ChatGPT?
> You came for syntax. You'll leave with a philosophy.
Hmm, the explanation of Allocators is much more detailed in the book, but I feel although more compact, it seems much more reasonable in the language reference. [0]
I'll keep exploring this book though, it does look very impressive.
0 - https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Memory
>Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
Zig is just C with a marketing push. Most developers already know C.
I suspect most developers do not know C.
C is fine C++ is where they jumped the shark
5 replies →
That tagline unfortunately turned me off the book, without even starting to read.
I really don't need this kind of self-enlightenment rubbish.
What if I read the whole book and felt no change?
I think I understand SoA just fine.
It is also just such a supremely unziglike thing to state.
8 replies →
I would rephrase it as, Zig is just Modula-2 with a C like syntax.
The biggest red flag for me is the author hiding their name. If you wrote quality book about a programming language you are not hiding your identity from the world.
The repository also has a misconfigured .gitignore file which allowed them to check in some built executables into the repository.
This is something that I wouldn't judge beginners for, but someone claiming to be an expert writing a book on the topic should know how to configure a .gitignore for their particular language of expertise.
Very well done! wow! Thanks for this. Going through this now.
One comment: About the syntax highlighting, the dark blue for keywords against a black background is very difficult to read. And if you opt for the white background, the text becauses off white / grey which again is very difficult to read.
A lot of love went into this. It's evident throughout. Great job!
Nah, just a lot of prompting.
A nitpick about website: the top progress bar is kind of distracting (high-constrast color with animation). It's also unnecessary because there is already scrollbar on the right side.
So despite this...
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM.
Can the author... Convince me otherwise?
> This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a different kind of simplicity: the kind you earn by climbing through complexity and emerging with complete understanding on the other side.
> Welcome to the Zigbook. Your transformation starts now.
...
> You will know where every byte lives in memory, when the compiler executes your code, and what machine instructions your abstractions compile to. No hidden allocations. No mystery overhead. No surprises.
...
> This is not about memorizing syntax. This is about earning mastery.
Pretty clear it's all AI. The @zigbook account only has 1 activity prior to publishing this repo, and that's an issue where they mention "ai has made me too lazy": https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/272725
After reading the first five chapters, I'm leaning this way. Not because of a specific phrase, but because the pacing is way off. It's really strange to start with symbol exporting, then moving to while loops, then moving to slices. It just feels like a strange order. The "how it works" and "key insights" also feel like a GPT summarization. Maybe that's just a writing tic, but the combination of correct grammar with bad pacing isn't something I feel like a human writer has. Either you have neither (due to lack of practice), or both (because when you do a lot of writing you also pick up at least some ability to pace). Could be wrong though.
It's just an odd claim to make when it feels very much like AI generated content + publish the text anonymously. It's obviously possible to write like this without AI, but I can't remember reading something like this that wasn't written by AI.
It doesn't take away from the fact that someone used a bunch of time and effort on this project.
To be clear, I did not dismiss the project or question its value - simply questioned this claim as my experience tells me otherwise and they make a big deal out of it being human written and "No AI" in multiple places.
1 reply →
Did they actually spend a bunch of time and effort though? I think you could get an llm to generate the entire thing, website and all.
Check out the sleek looking terminal--there's no ls, cd, it's just an ai hallucination.
I was pretty skeptical too, but it looks legit to me. I've been doing Zig off and on for several years, and have read through the things I feel like I have a good understanding of (though I'm not working on the compiler, contributing to the language, etc.) and they are explained correctly in a logical/thoughtful way. I also work with LLMs a ton at work, and you'd have to spoon-feed the model to get outputs this cohesive.
Pangram[1] flags the introduction as totally AI-written, which I also suspected for the same reasons you did
[1] one of the only AI detectors that actually works, 99.9% accuracy, 0.1% false positive
Keep in mind that pangram flags many hand-written things as AI.
> I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it. Both came back as ai with 99.9% confidence. Both stories were written in 2013.
> I've been doing some extensive testing in the last 24 hours and I can confidently say that I believe the 1 in 10,000 rate is bullshit. I've been an author for over a decade and have dozens of books at hand that I can throw at this from years prior to AI even existing in anywhere close to its current capacity. Most of the time, that content is detected as AI-created, even when it's not.
> Pangram is saying EVERYTHING I have hand written for school is AI. I've had to rewrite my paper four times already and it still says 99.9% AI even though I didn't even use AI for the research.
> I've written an overview of a project plan based on a brief and, after reading an article on AI detection, I thought it would be interesting to run it through AI detection sites to see where my writing winds up. All of them, with the exception of Pangram, flagged the writing as 100% written by a human. Pangram has "99% confidence" of it being written by AI.
I generally don't give startups my contact info, but if folks don't mind doing so, I recommend running pangram on some of their polished hand written stuff.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teachingresources/comments/1icnren/...
2 replies →
Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility. You can write stuff yourself and use an LLM to enhance the reading flow. Especially for non-native speakers it is immensely helpful to do so. Doesn't mean that the content is "AI-generated". The essence is still written by a human.
> Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility.
I agree that there is a difference between entirely LLM-generated, and LLM-reworded. But the statement is unequivocal to me:
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written
If an LLM was used in any fashion, then this statement is simply a lie.
1 reply →
But then you cannot write that
"The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written"
Clarity in writing comes mostly from the logical structure of ideas presented. Writing can have grammar/style errors but still be clear. If the structure is bad after translation, then it was bad before translation too.
> Can the author... Convince me otherwise?
Not disagreeing with you, but out of interest, how could you be convinced otherwise?
I'm not sure, but I try my best to assume good faith / be optimistic.
This one hit a sore spot b/c many people are putting time and effort into writing things themselves and to claim "no ai use" if it is untrue is not fair.
If the author had a good explanation... Idk not a native English writer and used an LLM to translate and that included the "no LLMs used" call-out and that was translated improperly etc
1 reply →
To me it's another specimen in the "demonstrating personhood" problem that predates LLMs. e.g. Someone replies to you on HN or twitter or wherever, are they a real person worth engaging with? Sometimes it'll literally be a person but their behavior is indistinguishable from a bot, that's their problem. Convincing signs of life include account age, past writing samples, and topic diversity.
Git log / draft history
IMO HN should add a guideline about not insinuating things were written by AI. It degrades the quality of the site similarly to many of the existing rules.
Arguably it would be covered by some of the existing rules, but it's become such a common occurrence that it may need singling out.
What degrades conversation is to lie about something being not AI when it actually is. People pointing out the fraud are right to do so.
One thing I've learned is that comment sections are a vital defense on AI content spreading, because while you might fool some people, it's hard to fool all the people. There have been times I've been fooled by AI only to see in the comments the consensus that it is AI. So now it's my standard practice to check comments to see what others are saying.
If mods put a rule into place that muzzles this community when it comes to alerting others a fraud is being affected, that just makes this place a target for AI scams.
6 replies →
I wish AI had the self-built irony of adding vomit emojis to their sycophantic sentences.
I don't think so, I think it's just a pompous style of writing.
You can't just say that a linguistic style "proves" or even "suggests" AI. Remember, AI is just spitting out things its seen before elsewhere. There's plenty of other texts I've seen with this sort of writing style, written long before AI was around.
Can I also ask: so what if it is or it isn't?
While AI slop is infuriating, and the bubble hype is maddening, I'm not sure every time somebody sees some content they don't like the style of we just call out it "must" be AI, and debate if it is or it isn't is not at least as maddening. It feels like all content published now gets debated like this, and I'm definitely not enjoying it.
You can be skeptical of anything but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest that it's generated text.
As to why it matters, doesn't it matter when people lie? Aren't you worried about the veracity of the text if it's not only generated but was presented otherwise? That wouldn't erode your trust that the author reviewed the text and corrected any hallucinations even by an iota?
4 replies →
The sweet irony of this post is that this very post itself is written by an LLM.
Who cares?
Still better than just nagging.
Using AI to write is one thing, claiming you didn't when you did should be objectionable to everyone.
13 replies →
My statement refers to this claim: "I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM."
The hypocrisy and entitlement mentality that prevails in this discussion is disgusting. My recommendation to the fellow below that he should write a book himself (instead of complaining) was even flagged, demonstrating once again the abuse of this feature to suppress other, completely legitimate opinions.
1 reply →
The gratuit accusations in this thread should be flagged.
As someone who is diving deep into Zig, I’m actually going to evaluate all this (and compare this to Ziglings) or the Zig track on Exercism.
There is more specificity around AI use in the project README. There may have been LLMs used during drafting, which has led to the "hallmarks" sticking around that some commenters are pointing out.
That statement is honestly self-contradictory. If a draft was AI-generated and then reviewed, edited, and owned by a human contributor, then the parts which survived reviewing and editing verbatim were still AI-generated...
Why do you care, if a human reviewed and edited it, someone filtered it to make sure it’s correct. It’s validated to be correct, that is the main point.
3 replies →
Welp. I wish I had read the comments first to discover that this is AI generated. On the other hand, I got to experience the content without bias.
I opted to give it a try instead of reading the comments and the book was arranged in a super strange way where it's discussing concepts that a majority of programmers would never be concerned with when starting out with learning a language. It's very different to learn about some of these concepts if you are reading a language doc in order to work on the language itself. But if you want to learn how to use the language, something like:
is absolutely never going to be something you dump into chapter 1. I skimmed through a few chapters from there and it's blocks of stuff thrown in randomly. The introduction to the if conditional throws in Zig Intermediate Representation with absolutely no explanation of what it is and why it's even being discussed.
Came here to comment that this has been written pretty poorly or just targets a very niche audience and now I discover it's slop. What a waste of time. The one thing AI was supposed to save.
This source is really hard to trust. AI or not, the author has done no work to really establish epistemological reliability and transparency. The entire book was published at once with no history, no evidence of the improvement and iteration it takes to create quality work, and no reference as to the creative process or collaborators or anything. And on top of that, the author does not seem to really have any other presence or history in the community. I love Zig, and have wanted more quality learning materials to exist. This, unfortunately, does not seem to be it.
How do you feel about regular books, whose iterations and edits you dont see?
For books that are published in more traditional manners, digital or paper, there is normally a credible publisher, editors, sometimes a foreword from a known figure, reviews from critics or experts in the field, and often a bio about the author explaining who they are and why they wrote the book etc. These different elements are all signals of reliability, they help to convey that the content is more than just fluff around an attention-grabbing title, that it has depth and quality and holds up. The whole publishing business has put massive effort into establishing and building these markers of trust.
Do you have any criticism of the content, or just "I don't know the author"?
They didn't say "this is in error", so they don't need any such example errors. They also didn't say just "I don't know the author".
The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on:
> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.
“Not just X - Y” constructions.
> By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand it deeply enough to teach others, contribute to the ecosystem, and build systems that reflect your complete mastery.
More not just X - Y constructions with parallelism.
Even the “not made with AI” banner seems AI generated! Note the 3 item parallelism.
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I don’t have anything against AI generated content. I’m just confused what’s going on here!
EDIT: after scanning the contents of the book itself I don’t believe it’s AI generated - perhaps it’s just the intro?
EDIT again: no, I’ve swung back to the camp of mostly AI generated. I would believe it if you told me the author wrote it by hand and then used AI to trim the style, but “no AI” seems hard to believe. The flow charts in particular stand out like a sore thumb - they just don’t have the kind of content a human would put in flow charts.
Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate.
I'm not sure what to make of that either.
To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.
3 replies →
But you didn't write that "Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are not just examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college; they're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate."
I mean maybe the content is not AI generated (I wouldn’t say it is) but the website does have an AI generated smell to it. From the colors to the shapes, it looks like Sonnet or Opus definitely made some tweaks.
Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong. You can't tell something is AI generated only because it uses "not just X - Y" constructions. I mean, the reason AI text often uses it is because it's common in the training material. So of course you're going to see it everywhere.
I sent the text through an AI detector with 0.1% false positive rate and it was highly confident the Zig book introduction was fully AI-written
Find me some text from pre-AI that uses so many of these constructions in such close proximity if it’s really so easy - I don’t think you’ll have much luck. Good authors have many tactics in their rhetorical bag of tricks. They don’t just keep using the same one over and over.
3 replies →
> Most programming languages hide complexity from you
A garbage collector isn't "hidden complexity". We all know they exist and use memory and CPU.
How Zig is better than Ruby:
- it has a linear performance gain
- the IDE has more information
That's great if you absolutely need it, but in a lot of cases:
- you don't need linear performance gains or you need the gains to be more than linear
- the linear performance gains come at a huge cost: code readability (assuming you managed to write it and it compiles)
- relying too much on the IDE won't make better programs and won't make you a better programmer
I'm a C/C++ developer. I write production code in MQL5 (C-like) and Go, and I use Python for research and Automation. I can work with other languages as well, but I keep asking myself: why should I learn Zig?
If I want to do system or network programming, my current stack already covers those needs — and adding Rust would probably make it even more future-proof. But Zig? This is a genuine question, because the "Zig book" doesn’t give me much insight into what are the real use cases for Zig.
If you're doing it for real-world values, keep doing that. But if you want traction, writing in a "fancy" language is almost a requirement. "A database engine written in Zig" or "A search engine written in Zig" sounds much flashier and guarantees attention. Look at this book: it is defintely an AI slop, but it stays at the top spot, and there's barely any discussion about the language itself.
Enough rant, now back on some reasons for why choosing Zig:
For my personal usage, I'm working on replacing Docker builds for some Go projects that rely heavily on CGO by using `zig cc`. I'm not using the Zig language itself, but this could be considered one of its use cases.
> For my personal usage, I'm working on replacing Docker builds for some Go projects that rely heavily on CGO by using `zig cc`. I'm not using the Zig language itself, but this could be considered one of its use cases.
Hm, i can see a good use case when we want to have reproducible builds from go packages, including its C extensions. Is that your use case, or are you aiming for multi-environment support of your compiled "CGO extensions"
1 reply →
My take on this as someone that professionally coded in C, C++, Go, Rust, Python (and former darlings of the past) is that Zig gives you the sort of control that C does with enough niceties as to not break into other idioms like C++ and Rust does in terms of complexity. Rust "breaks" on some low level stuff when you need to deal with unsafe (another idiom) or when you need to rely on proc-macros to have a component system like Bevy does. Nothing wrong with this, is just that is hard to cover all the ground. The same happens with C++, having to grow to adapt to cover a lot of ground it ended up with lots of features and also with some complexity burden.
In my experience with Zig, you have the feeling of thinking more about systems engineering using the language to help you implement that without resorting to all sort of language idioms and complexity. It feels more intuitive in way giving it tries to stay simple and get out of your way. Its a more "unsurprising" programming language in terms of what you end up getting after you code into it, in terms of understanding exactly how the code will run.
In terms of ecosystem, lets say you have Java lunch, C lunch and C++ lunch (established languages) in their domains. Go is eating some Java(C#, etc..) lunch and in smaller domains some C++ lunch. Rust is in the same heavy weight category as Go, but it can eat more C++ lunch than Go ever could.
Now Zig will be able to compete in ways that it can really be an alternative to C core values, which other programming languages failed to achieve. So it will be aimed at things C and C++ are doing now and where Go and Rust wont be good candidates.
If you used Rust long enough you can see that while it can cover almost all ground its not a good fit for lower level stuff or at least not without some compromises either in performance or complexity (affecting productivity). So its more in the same family as C++ in terms of what you pay for (again nothing wrong with that, is just that some complex codebases will need a good amount of man-hours effort in the same line as C++ does).
Don't get me wrong, Rust can be good at low level stuff too, is just that some of its choices make you as a developer pay a price for those niceties when you need to get your hands dirty in specific domains.
With Zig you fell more focused on the machine with less abstractions as in C but with enough goodies that can make even the most die-hard C developer think about using it (something C++ and Rust never managed to do it).
So i think Zig will have its place in the sun as Rust does. But I see Rust taking more the place where Java used to be (together with Go) + some things that were made in C++ where Zig will be more focused on system and low level stuff.
Modern C++ will still be around, but Rust and Zig will used more and more where languages like C and C++ used to be the only real contenders, which is quite good in my POV.
What will happen is that Rust and Zig programmers might overlap and offer tools in the same area (see Bun and Deno for instance) but the tools will excel on their own way and with time it will be more clear into which domain Rust and Zig are better at.
thank you for your detailed answer. I found another great discussion around Zig here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374647
"The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices."
Such a bald-faced and utterly disgusting lie. The introduction itself ticks every single flag of AI generated slop. AI is trained well on corporate marketing brochures.
I don't know any of you. But Zig has opened way big door for system programming for people like me who has never done that before. And, Zig code looks (for a guy comes from curly braces language) easier to understand with really small learning curve.
But can we train AI on this beautifully hand-crafted material, and ask it later to rewrite Rust with Zig? :]
I wonder if HN should mandate an [AI] tag for links to AI generated content.
It should be against HN policy to link to AI generated content just as it's against HN policy to post AI generated comments.
Futile as it is.
Folks! do I really need learn Zig? I am already good with Rust!!
Yeah, you should. Zig is a trending language right now, and in the coming years many projects are likely to be rewritten in Zig instead of Rust (often referred to as "riiz").
So, a new JS linter written in Zig, when?
1 reply →
Is this sarcasm? if yes I got your joke otherwise please enlighten me _/\_
1 reply →
I don't think you need to learn anything! Especially if you like Rust and it works for your projects.
Not an expert but Zig seems like a modern C - you manage memory yourself. I guess if you want more modern features than C offers, and actively don't want the type-system sort of features that Zig has (or are grumpy about compile times, etc) then it's there for you to try!
Bar C if you're into system's programming there's no language you *need* to learn.
Partially agree on this, std lib/crates and ease of use do make a difference (this is not even the main reason to use Rust), though Rust certainly has its own headaches. (Imagine searching for someone's implementation of HashedMap on github or using dedicated packages like glib, when you get it easily at crates.io). Again this is subjective based on use cases.
1 reply →
Using Next.js and Tailwind-bloat feels contradictory to Zig.
It was very hard to find a link to the table of contents… then I tried opening it and the link didn’t work. I’m on iOS. I’d have loved to take a look quickly what’s in the book…
https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/tree/main/pages
I found it, maybe it was there all along. Go to chapters, then open the side menu with the hamburger button.
For me, personally, any new language needs to have a "why." If a new language can't convince me in 1-2 sentences why I need to learn it and how it's going to improve software development, as a whole, it's 99% bs and not worth my time.
DHH does a great job of clarifying this during his podcast with Lex Friedman. The "why" is immediately clear and one can decide for themselves if it's what they're looking for. I have not yet seen a "why" for Zig.
Hmmm what about this: https://ziglang.org/learn/why_zig_rust_d_cpp/
Convincing enough?
For many languages I agree, especially languages with steep learning curves (e.g. Rust, Haskell). But zig is dead fast to learn so I'd recommend just nipping through Ziglings and seeing if its a language you want to add to the toolbox. It took me only about 10 hours to pick up and get used to and it has immediately replaced C and C++ in my personal projects. It's really just a safer, more ergonomic C. If you already love C, I maybe wouldn't bother.
inb4 people start putting a standardized “not AI generated” symbol in website headers
Oh no, it's paginated
wow, it's so cool.
If the code/text is wrong since that too is AI slop, why is this not flagged yet? We were better at this once.
> No hidden control flow: Zig has no hidden allocators, goroutines…
Neither of those things are control flow, and yet again I’m reading a pro-Zig text taking a dig at Go without any substance to the criticism.
Also funny having a dig at goroutines when Zig is all over the place with its async implementation.
Haha the fucking garbage. Before AI, before the internet, this overexaggerated, hokey prose was written by scummy humans and it came exclusively in porn magazines along with the x-ray specs and sea-monkey fishtanks.
Some text is unreadable because it is so small.
Why do we need another language?
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.
I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.
There is also Brainmade: https://brainmade.org/
What's stopping AI made content from including this as well?
1 reply →
The name seems odd to me, because I think it's fine to describe things as a digital brain, especially when the word brain doesn't only apply to humans but to organisms as simple as a 959 cell roundworm with 302 neurons.
2 replies →
If this gets any traction, AI bros on Twitter will put it on their generated images just out of spite.
There seems to be https://notbyai.fyi/ and https://no-ai-icon.com/ ..!
> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get started are now in your way.
> Zig takes a different path. It reveals complexity—and then gives you the tools to master it.
> This book will take you from Hello, world! to building systems that cross-compile to any platform, manage memory with surgical precision, and generate code at compile time. You will learn not just how Zig works, but why it works the way it does. Every allocation will be explicit. Every control path will be visible. Every abstraction will be precise, not vague.
But sadly people like the prompter of this book will lie and pretend to have written things themselves that they did not. First three paragraphs by the way, and a bingo for every sign of AI.
These posts are getting old.
I had a discussion on some other submission a couple of weeks back, where several people were arguing "it's obviously AI generated" (the style btw was completely different to this, quite a few explicitives...). When I put the the text in 5 random AI detectors the argument who except for one (which said mixed, 10% AI or so) all said 100% human I was being down voted and the argument became "AI detection tools can detect AI" but somehow the people claim there are 100% clear telltale signs which says it's AI (why those detection tools can detect them is baffling to me).
I have the feeling that the whole "it's AI" stick has become a synonym for I don't like this writing style.
It really does not add to the discussion. If people would post immediately "there's spelling mistakes this is rubbish", they would rightfully get down voted, but somehow saying "it's AI" is acceptable. Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it? So what is your point?
2 replies →
Right in those same first few paragraphs... "...hiding something from you. Because they are."
Would most LLMs have written that invalid fragment sentence "Because they are." ?
I don't think you have enough to go on to make this accusation.
2 replies →
The em dashes?
4 replies →
I like these ones:
https://cadence.moe/blog/2024-10-05-created-by-a-human-badge...
Even for content that isn’t directly composed by llm, I bet there’d be value in an alerting system that could ingest your docs and code+commits and flag places where behaviour referenced by docs has changed and may need to be updated.
This kind of “workflow” llm use has the potential to deliver a lot of value even to a scenario where the final product is human-composed.
Meh. I mean, who's it for? People should be adopting the stance that everything is AI on the internet and make decisions from there. If you start trusting people telling you that they're not using AI, you're setting yourself up to be conned.
Edit: So I wrote this before I read the rest of the thread where everyone is pointing out this is indeed probably AI, so right of the bat the "AI-free" label is conning people.
I guess now the trend is Zig. The era of Javascript framework has come to end. After that was AI tend. And now we have Zig and its allocators, especially the arena allocator.
/S
[flagged]
What is it with HN and the "oh, I thought {NAME} is the totally different tool {NAME}" comments? Is it some inside joke?
Or just incredulity that people naming a technology are ignorant of the fact that another well-known technology is already using it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One is Zig the other is Zigbee, I don't understand your comment...
https://stockshed.com/products/t3542-zig-2-4-ghz-wireless-me...
I think ZigBee uses Zig. It's an implementation.
4 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Username definitely doesn't check out on this comment. Please try again.
[flagged]
There's an actual production grade database written in zig: https://tigerbeetle.com/
ghostty and bun aren't real world enough for you?
They're not. It's real world when there's a market for paying Zig jobs, not when you can list a few github repos that use it.
1 reply →
Simple: your priors are wrong. People use Zig.
Even if what you say is true, people make bets on new tech all the time. You show up early so you can capture mindshare. If Zig becomes mainstream then this could be the standard book that everyone recommends. Not just that, it’s more likely the language succeeds if it has good learning materials - that’s an outcome the author would love.
> people make bets on new tech all the time. You show up early so you can capture mindshare.
I got on the ground floor with elixir. got my startup built on it. now we have 3 fulltime engineers working on elixir fulltime. None of that would have happenned if I looked at a young language and said "its not used in the real world"
"nobody uses in the real world yet" is uncharitable, as Zig is used in many real-world projects (Bun and Tigerbeetle are written in Zig, for example). But there's value being at the forefront of technologies that you think are going to explode soon, so that's how people find time and energy, I guess.
there's no way someone made this for free, where do I donate? im gonna get so much value from this this feels like stealing
It's AI-written FWIW
though maybe AI is getting to the point it can do stuff like this somewhat decently
The first page says none of the book was written by AI
7 replies →
Dang duped again
SAME. I was looking for a donation button myself! I've paid for worse quality instructional material. this is just the sort of thing I'm happy to support
Need this but to learn AI