Comment by dnautics
1 day ago
did you miss this part?
> planned to be addressed
i have in mind a strategy to address all of them. this is a side project, a proof of concept, i have other things going on in my life. i dont chip away at it every week.
you make, without any evidence ("Obviously"), an assertion that "it would look like another language". so far if anything applying zig clr would push a user to write more idiomatically ziggy code, away from idiomatically c-ish code. i dont see why continuing with clr wouldn't go further along that trend. so consider what is "obvious" to you might just be flat out wrong.
> It might be an interesting language worth exploring.
worth how much? youre welcome to sponsor my exploration and put your money where your mouth is:
I wish them the best of luck, but I don't expect them to succeed, and unspecified plans don't constitute a demonstration of feasibility. Plenty of people have made plans to solve unsolvable problems in the past, me included. I strongly suspect that that is the case here (or that they're willing to iterate away from zig).
The evidence is the amount that rust had to iterate on the underlying language to make the borrow checker work well. Something it had the freedom to do since it was co-designing the language and linter.
Edit: Didn't realize this was your project (responded before you added the donation link) - I would have worded my response slightly differently but my opinion is unchanged. Seriously mean it with the best of luck getting this to work.
do you want a direct description of the plan for async/alias work? hash the globally accessed gid list and if any operation changes retrigger analysis of all functions in the same execution block with the new layout.
i have not had to change the language to accomodate uaf/df/leak analysis (which is not easy). i see no reason why i should have to to get async/alias to work.
unlike rust, as of zig 0.16 async conceptually is abstracted to a userland interface in the stdlib (versus a keyword), which means that its easier to detect, and easier to work into the existing clr system. that means it's either "not doable at all" (unlikely) or is unlikely to need any back and forths to be done with the language