Comment by obviouslynotme
3 months ago
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.
To me, the fact that Zig has spent so long in development disqualifies it as being a "rewrite of C."
To be clear, I really like Zig. But C is also a relatively simple language to both understand and implement because it doesn't have many features, and the features it does have aren't overly clever. Zig is a pretty easy language to learn, but the presence of comptime ratchets up the implementation difficulty significantly.
A true C successor might be something like Odin. I am admittedly not as tuned into the Odin language as I am Zig, but I get the impression that despite being started six months after Zig, the language is mostly fully implemented as envisioned, and most of the work is now spent polishing the compiler and building out the standard library, tooling and package ecosystem.
I don't think it's the implementation that's delaying Zig's stabilisation, but the design. I'm also not sure comptime makes the implementation all that complicated. Lisp macros are more powerful than comptime (comptime is weaker by design) and they don't make Lisp implementation complicated.
2 replies →
> 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.
To my understanding (and I still haven’t used Zig) the “comptime” inherently (for sufficiently complex cases) leads to library code that needs to be actively tested for potential client use since the instantiation might fail. Which is not the case for the strict subset of “compile time” functionality that Java generics and whatnot bring.
I don’t want that in any “the new X” language. Maybe for experimental languages. But not for Rust or Zig or any other that tries to improve on the mainstream (of whatever nice) status quo.
> leads to library code that needs to be actively tested for potential client use since the instantiation might fail
True, like templates in C++ or macros in C or Rust. Although the code is "tested" at compile time, so at worst your compilation will fail.
> I don’t want that in any “the new X” language
Okay, and I don't want any problem of any kind in my language, but unfortunately, there are tradeoffs in programming language design. So the question is what you're getting in exchange for this problem. The answer is that you're getting a language that's both small and easy to inspect and understand. So you can pick having other problems in exchange for not having this one, but you can't pick no problems at all. In fact, you'll often get some variant of this very problem.
In Java, you can get by with high-level abstractions because we have a JIT, but performance in languages that are compiled AOT is more complicated. So, in addition to generics, low-level languages have other features that are not needed in Java. C++ has templates, which are a little more general than generics, but they can fail to instantiate, too. It also has preprocessor macros that can fail to compile in a client program. Rust has ordinary generics, which are checked once, but since that's not enough for a low-level language, it also has macros, and those can also fail to expand correctly.
So in practice, you either have one feature that can fail to compile in the client, or you can have the functionality split among multiple features, resulting in a more complicated language, and still have some of those features exhibit the same problem.
2 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.
To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch. It seems that way in the beginning but then quickly devolves into a monstrosity when you start doing more complex things.
Zig on the other specifically addresses syntax shortcomings in part of C. And it does it well. That claim of rust making C more safe because it’s more readable applies to Zig more than it does to Rust.
I feel like the reason the rust zealots lobby like crazy to embed rust everywhere is twofold. One is that they genuinely believe in it and the other is that they know that if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft gains popularity they lose the chance of being permanently embdedded in places like the kernel. Because once they’re in it’s a decade long job market
> they know that if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft gains popularity they lose the chance of being permanently embdedded in places like the kernel
First of all, I'm really opposed to saying "the kernel". I am sure you're talking about the Linux kernel, but there are other kernels (BSD, Windows etc.) that are certainly big enough to not call it "the" kernel, and that may also have their own completely separate "rust-stories".
Secondly, I think the logic behind this makes no sense, primarily because Rust at this point is 10 years old from stable and almost 20 years old from initial release; the adoption into the Linux kernel wasn't exactly rushed. Even if it was, why would Rust adoption in the Linux kernel exclude adoption of another language as well, or a switch to another, if it's better? The fact that Rust was accepted at all to begin with aside from C disproves the assumption, because clearly that kernel is open for "better" languages.
The _simplest_ explanation to why Rust has succeeded is that it's solves actual problems, not that "zealots" are lobbying for it to ensure they "have a job".
2 replies →
> To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch.
I don’t see where the comment you’re replying to does that (was it edited?). Their comment says nothing about aesthetics.
2 replies →
> To call Rust syntax beautiful is a stretch.
I'm no Rust fan, but beauty of a syntax is always in the eye of the beholder.
I personally find Go, C++ and Python's syntax beautiful. All can be written in very explicit or expressive forms. On the other hand, you can hide complexity to a point.
If you are going to do complex things in a compact space, you'll asymptotically approach Perl or PCRE. It's maths.
All code is maths, BTW.
> if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft
But regardless of how much one likes Zig, it addresses none of the problems that Rust seeks to solve. It's not a replacement for Rust at all, and isn't suitable for any of the domains where Rust excels.
24 replies →
For my part, I don't know why, but Zig's syntax feels wrong to me. I don't even know why. I really want to like its syntax, as Zig seems really promising to me, but I just don't, which makes it not very enjoyable for me to write.
I don't know if it's my lack of practice, but I never felt the same about, say, Rust's syntax, or the syntax of any other language for that matter.
> I feel like
Needless flame bait follows.
Kind of, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_(programming_language)
What it has achieved is making affine types something mainstream developers would care about.
That kind of is a bit load bearing. The differences are pretty huge. Plus, borrow checker is nowhere to be found. Cyclone is more C with a few tweaks (tagged unions, generics, regions, etc.).
2 replies →
There were languages with lifetimes and borrowing mechanics before Rust. Rust packages these mechanics in a nice way. Just like Zig encodes many niceties in a useful C language (comptime, simple cross-compilation, stdlib).
Which ones?? Before Rust, to my knowledge, no language had an actually practical way to use lifetimes and borrow-checking so that both memory safety and concurrency safety (data races, which is huge) were solved, even though the concepts were known in research. Doing the actual work to make it practical is what makes the difference between some obscure research topic and a widely used language that actually solves serious problems in the real world.
3 replies →
> actually do change the way you think about software. It's a pretty momentous paradigm shift.
That's true for people who doesn't read and think about the code they write. For people who think from the perspective of a computer, Rust is "same checks, but forced by the compiler".
Make no mistake, to err is human, but Rust doesn't excite me that much.
> 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.
Very, very few people outside of foundational system software, HFT shops, and game studios understand why it's a great selling point. Everyone else likes the other points and don't realize the actual selling point of the language.
>Rust is that for C++
No it's not. Rust has roots in functional languages. It is completely orthoganol to C++.
Graydon Hoare, a former C++ programmer on Mozilla Firefox and the original creator of Rust, acknowledges that for many people, Rust has become a viable alternative to C++ :
https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/307291.html
And on slide #4, he mentions that "C++ is well past expiration date" :
https://venge.net/graydon/talks/intro-talk-2.pdf
It's possible that Graydon's earliest private versions of Rust the 4 years prior to that pdf were an OCaml-inspired language but it's clear that once the team of C++ programmers at Mozilla started adding their influences, they wanted it to be a cleaner version of C++. That's also how the rest of the industry views it.
> Rust has become a viable alternative to C++
Alternative yes, derivative no. Rust doesn't approach C++'s metaprogramming features, and it probably shouldn't given how it seems to be used. It's slightly self-serving for browser devs to claim Rust solves all relevant problems in their domain and therefore eclipses C++, but to me in the scientific and financial space it's a better C, making tradeoffs I don't see as particularly relevant.
I say this as a past contributor to the Rust std lib.
So?
Zig, D, and C are also alternatives to C++. It’s a class of languages that have zero cost abstractions.
Rust is NOT a beautiful language hiding inside of C++. It is not an evolution of C++. I’m pointing out that what you said is objectively wrong.
Can rust replace C++ as a programming language that has a fast performance profile due to zero cost abstractions? Yes. In the same way that Haskell can replace Python, yes it can.
> 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?