Comment by kibwen
3 months ago
> 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.
> and isn't suitable for any of the domains where Rust excels.
That's a pretty bold claim since Zig is specifically designed for systems programming, low level stuff, network services, databases (think Tigerbeetle). It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs.
> It's not memory safe like Rust is, but it comes with constructs that make it simple to build largely memory safe programs.
Right, this is the specific important thing that Rust does that Zig doesn't (with the caveat that Rust includes the `unsafe` mechanism - as a marked, non-default option - specifically to allow for necessary low-level memory manipulation that can't be checked for correctness by the compiler). Being able to guarantee that something can't happen is more valuable than making it simple to do something correctly most of the time.
It's not that simple though, Zig has equivalent spatial memory safety which prevents issues that are pretty consistently among (or at) the top of the list for most dangerous vulnerability classes.
And while I don't have enough experience with Rust to claim this first hand, my understanding is that writing correct unsafe Rust code is at least an order of magnitude harder than writing correct Zig code due to all of the properties/invariants that you have to preserve. So it comes with serious drawbacks, it's not just a quick "opt out of the safety for a bit" switch.
> Being able to guarantee that something can't happen is more valuable than making it simple to do something correctly most of the time.
Of course, all other things being equal, but they're not.
9 replies →
Sure but there's this belief in the Rust community that it's not responsible anymore to write software that isn't memory safe on the same level as Rust.
So Zig would fail that, but then you could also consider C++ unsuitable for production software - and we know it clearly is still suitable.
I predict Zig will just become more and more popular (and with better, although not as complete- memory safety), and be applied to mission critical infra.
4 replies →
Given the density of memory issues in the Bun issue tracker I have a hard time squaring the statement that Zig makes it "easy" to build memory safe programs.
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=segfault%20OR%20segm...
> https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=segfault%20OR%20segm...
It should be noted that most of those issues are created by opening a link that bun creates when it crashes, they are not yet reviewed/confirmed and most likely a lot of them are dulplicates of the same issue.
1 reply →
Rust is not designed for low level system programming / embedded systems like Zig is. It is designed to make a browser and software that share requirements with making a browser.
There is some overlap but that's still different. The Zig approach to memory safety is to make everything explicit, it is good in a constrained environment typical of embedded programming. The Rust approach is the opposite, you don't really see what is happening, but there are mechanisms to keep your safe. It is good for complex software with lots of moving parts in an unconstrained environment, like a browser.
For a footgun analogy, one will hand you a gun that will never go off unless you aim and pull the trigger, so you can shoot your foot, but no sane person will. It is a good sniper rifle. The Rust gun can go off at any time, even when you don't expect it, but it is designed in such a way that it will never happen when it is pointed at your foot, even if you aim it there. It is a good machine gun.
> Rust is not designed for low level system programming / embedded systems like Zig is.
Pray tell, with Rust already being used in kernels, drivers, and embedded what makes Zig better suited for low-level systems?
More chance to explode a UB in your hand? For that, there is C.
2 replies →