I would say just stay away from the standard library for now and use your OS API, unless you're willing to be a beta tester.
If the tradeoff was absolute performance/avoiding introducing load-bearing performance-lowering abstraction I think that goal was achieved, but DX may have gone out the window.
Not trying to imply that’s an explicit goal (probably instead just a resource problem), but an observation
Generally speaking I think it is the right trade off for now. Purely inferring from Andrew and the Zig's team online character as I don't know them in person, I think they do care a lot of DX, things like compiling speed and tools. So I think once 1.0 come I won't be surprised if it will have extremely good documentation as well.
And I would argue, writing good, simple, clear, detailed documentation is actually harder than writing code itself.
I like to compare this to real world cathedral building. There are some cathedrals that are literally taking centuries to build! It's OK if the important, but difficult thing takes a long time to build.
If you keep up the development pace you're going to approach stability. Unless you're in a manic spiral of rewrites.
Making a programming language from scratch is a long endeavor when it's a one man project.
They unarguably cause confusion for everyone as they change.
But it lets you choose the right abstractions that are going to stick for decades.
If you're going to make a python2 -> python3 transition in your language, make sure it's X0 -> X1.
That said, others have pointed out that writing documentation and tests helps improve quality quite a bit, and in this case it would also increase usability. I think I'd agree with this stance, but there is no way I could make the statement that even most of the code I've written for public consumption had excellent documentation or examples. So I've got no leg to stand on there, just the armchair.
> And I would argue, writing good, simple, clear, detailed documentation is actually harder than writing code itself.
All the more reason why it must be done! A little silly but from my armchair maybe it's one of those "start with the interface you want and work backwards", but the problem is that approach can be at odds with mechanical sympathy and we know which side Zig lands on (and arguably should land on based on it's values).
If so, I believe Zig will stay within a niche. Lower entry barriers allow "script kiddies" to easily start withe language, and they eventually will become leading engineers. Only a few people tend to go straight for the highest practice without "playing around". IMHO the reason, why PHP got so popular (it was not good back then, just very very easy to start with).
Yes.
I think a contributor that really wanted to help the ecosystem would start in the stdlib and then start moving outwards. Even if it was LLM-assisted, I think it could be high value.
IIRC Loris already has an engine for building websites with Zig, but making sure that every Zig library has docs (similar to rustdocs) might be a great start. It is incredibly useful to have a resource like rustdocs, both the tooling and the web sites that are easily browsable.
Again, maybe everyone in the Zig ecosystem just has amazing editor setups and massive brains, but I personally really like the ease of browsing rustdoc.
> If so, I believe Zig will stay within a niche. Lower entry barriers allow "script kiddies" to easily start withe language, and they eventually will become leading engineers. Only a few people tend to go straight for the highest practice without "playing around". IMHO the reason, why PHP got so popular (it was not good back then, just very very easy to start with).
I agree, but I'd add that the niche they're aiming for is systems programming, so they're probably fine :). The average hacker there is expecting C/C++ or to be near the metal, and I think Zig is a great fit there. They're likely not going to convince people who write Ruby, but it feels reasonable for C hackers.
Also I want to just be clear that I think Zig has a lot of motivating factors! They're doing amazing things like zig cc, unbelievably easy, "can't believe it's not butter" cross-compilation, their new explicit/managed I/O mechanism, explicit allocators as a default, comptime, better type ergonomics. It's a pretty impressive language.
Tbh, this sort of auto-generated docs from source code is not all that useful, since you get that same information right in the IDE via the language server.
The important documentation part that's currently missing is how everything is supposed to work together in the stdlib, not the 'micro-documentation' of what a single type or function does. And for this sort of information it's currently indeed better to look at example code (e.g. the stdlib's testing code).
IMHO it's way too early for this type of high-level documentation, since things change all the time in the stdlib. Putting much work into documenting concepts that are discarded again anyway doesn't make much sense.
I am just editing docs now that Claude Code writes for me. I am fanatic about developer docs (and I guess an exception as I love writing them) but with a set of concise instructions for CC and some writing style examples I get 90% there, sometimes 99%.
If you believe you don't have time for the last 1--10% you should not be in charge of writing any API used by anyone but yourself. Just my two c.
Lack of docs also cripple AI from understanding, so future adoption becomes even more bleak.
If an api or library developer didnt bother doing even bare minimum docs, my confidence in the library drops aswell.
Did they skip testing aswell? Ran the happy path for a day and called it good?
This post sour my interest in zig. Its now obvious to me now why rust took much of its market.
Zig (programming language) - First appeared 8 February 2016; 9 years ago
Rust (programming language) - First appeared January 19, 2012; 13 years ago
Also, Zig at this point isn't really a brand new language anymore. I have comments on their issues dating back to 2018, so it's been a very active language since at least then.
I tried Zig a couple of times and I got that feeling: very powerful and clever language but not really for me, I don't have the headspace, sorry. I need something I can debug after an 8 hours dayjob, a commute and having put the kids to bed. It better be inviting & fun! (Hi, C).
(Loris Cro being a key community figure isn't helping in any way, and it's a good remainder that if you don't clear up your community from bullies from the beginning, they will turn your entire community to a miserable place. And that's a shame because from what I've seen, Andrew Kelley seems to be a very cool guy in addition to being very smart).
It is the anti-intelectualism from Go culture, gone wild against C++, Rust, Swift, anything modern, or even tools, using game engines versus doing the whole computer from scratch for a game.
Andrew's talk is here (second event after the two people chatting while sitting on chairs): https://handmadecities.com/media/seattle-2024/hms-day-one/
Here you can see a particularly funny (but also sad) reaction by one of these people https://drive.proton.me/urls/MB1EB4EF34#YZdvmAvBFp1C
> using game engines versus doing the whole computer from scratch for a game
That said you are doing yourself a disservice if you think that not using an engine to make a game is a form of "anti-intellectualism".
Maybe, or maybe the fact that Zig is a small independent project with limited resources has also something to do with it, and this kind of shaming says less about Zig than you'd think.
When I first joined the Zig project, Zig was still using the bootstrap compiler written in C++ that would not free memory (it took more than 4GB to compile the Zig compiler). Some people at the time were asking us to prioritize work on the package manager but Andrew rightfully wanted to prioritize rewriting the compiler instead. In hindsight this was the obviously right decision: a package manager implies that one can very easily add an order of magnitude more code to their project, stressing the performance of the compiler. If we had not prioritized core infrastructure over giving people what they wanted faster, today we would have people complaining that adding a single dependency to their project makes the build impossible to complete.
The Zig project has a huge scope and we are a small independent organization. This makes us extremely nimble and efficient, but it does mean that we need to do things in the order that makes the most sense for the project, not for what the public wants.
The fact that we develop in the open doesn't mean that the language is ready yet.
People that already have the required domain knowledge (and who have a tolerance for breaking changes) will have the opportunity to be early adopters if they wish to do so, others will have to wait for Zig to become more mature. And we do make this clear in releases and all forms of public communication.
We have gone a long way since the bootstrap compiler days, but we are still missing key infrastructure:
- we have a x86_64 custom backend but aarch64 is not complete yet - incremental compilation is showing that we can get instant rebuilds of large projects, but it has missing features and it doesn't work on all platforms yet - we need native fuzzing since AFL keeps regressing everytime a new version of LLVM comes out - for the longest time we haven't had a strong I/O story, now we're finally working on it
The time for paving the road for a new generation of programmers will come (it's in the ZSF mission statement btw), but first we need to finish the plumbing.
That sounds strange. Modern C++ requires very little manual memory management, at least when you're writing something high-level like a compiler. C++11 had been out for years when development on Zig started. Were they writing C++ old-school as C-with-classes and malloc() everywhere? Why not use a more appropriate language for the first prototype of a compiler for a brand new language?
While tests aren’t quite as good documentation as actual documentation, they are guaranteed to not be out of date.
Of course documentation is good. But if you have to prioritize either a new feature, or a critical bugfix, or documentation, you often can't have it all
I do very much prefer moving fast though, so I get it, docs-later is obviously a very valid way of doing things.
If someone is excited about Zig and wanted to make a difference I guess it’s now obvious where they could have outsized impact!
But when working in open-source and your goal is to have people adopt your software, then it's a bad point and a lazy excuse.
There's a reason for the 0.x version number, if you can't live with breaking changes, don't use Zig yet. It's as simple as that.
Are you saying one should never make anything half finished available to the public? This post proves why it is valuable to do so, they are getting valuable feedback and a discussion on hacker news for free.
If the project invites me to use it "for maintaining robust, optimal and reusable software." without putting "super unstable, we don't even care about docs" on the same page... that's also saying something.
Similar to how TDD forces you to first figure out the API of your code due to the test code being its first client.
If you don't through that exercise, you're much more likely to build confusing, difficult-to-use APIs.
Am I missing some context? I’d love to hear it.
Discriminated unions, error handling, comptime, defer.
Better default integer type casting, ability to choose between releaseSafe/releaseFast
And probably other things.
As for comparison to Rust, you do want very low level memory handling for writing databases as an example. It is extremely difficult to write low level libraries in Rust
Did you write any Zig code yet? In terms of enforced correctness in the language (e.g. no integer promotion, no implicit 'dangerous' casts, null-safety, enforced error handling, etc...) and runtime safety (range-, nullptr-, integer-overflow-checks etc...), Zig is much closer to Rust than it is to C and C++.
It "just" doesn't solve static memory safety and some (admittedly important) temporal memory safety issues (aka "use-after-free"), but it still makes it much harder to accidentially trigger memory corruption as a side effect in most situations that C and C++ let slip through via a mix of compile errors and runtime checks (and you get ASAN/UBSAN automatically enabled in debug builds, a debug allocator which detects memory leaks and use-after-free for heap-allocations (unfortunately not for stack allocations), and proper runtime stack traces - things that many C/C++ toolchains are still missing or don't enable by default).
There is still one notable issue: returning a reference to stack memory from a function - this is something that many unexperienced Zig programmers seem to stumble into, especially since Zig's slice syntax looks so 'innocent' (slices look too similar to arrays, but arrays are values, while slices are references - e.g. 'fat pointers') - and which IMHO needs some sort of solution (either a compile time error via watertight escape analysis, or at least some sort runtime check which panics when trying to access 'stale' data on the stack) - and maybe giving slices their own distinct syntax that doesn't overlap with arrays might also help a bit.
But there is still the "big stuff" - the things that have a fundamental, architectural impact. Things like: Will my program be multithreaded? Will I have many systems that interact? Will my program be maximally memory-efficient? Do I have the capacity (or money) to ensure correctness if I say "yes" to any of that?
The most important consideration in any software project is managing architectural complexity. Zig is better, yes, but not a paradigm shift. If you say "yes" to any of the above, you are in the same world of pain (or expenses) as you would be in C or C++. This is the reason that Rust is interesting: It makes things feasible/cheap that were previously very hard/expensive, at a fundamental level.
But it doesn't have to be and it shouldn't. Rust also isn't a paradigm shift, it "just" solved static memory safety (admittedly a great engineering feat) but other languages solved memory safety too decades ago, just with more of it happening at runtime.
But in many other areas Rust copied too many bad ideas from C++ (and many of those "other things" Zig already does much better than Rust - but different people will have vastly different opinions about whether one solution is actually better than another - so discussions about those features usually run in circles).
There shouldn't be a single language that solves all problems - this will just result in stagnation, it's much better to have many languages to pick from - and even if they just differ in personal opinions of the language author of how to do things or entirely subjective 'syntax sugar' features. Competition is good, monocultures are bad.
> The most important consideration in any software project is managing architectural complexity
No language will help you managing "architectural complexity" in any meaningful way except by imposing tons of arbitrary restrictions which then get in the way for smaller projects that don't need much "architecture". We have plenty of "Enterprise-scale languages" already (Java, C#, Rust, C++, ...), what we need is more languages for small teams that don't get in the way of just getting shit done, since the really interesting and innovative stuff doesn't happen in enterprise environments but in small 'basement and bedroom teams' :)
Keep in mind that Rust's definition of "memory safety" covers much more than just use-after-free, the most important being thread safety. It is a blanket guarantee of no undefined behavior in any code that doesn't contain the word `unsafe`. Undefined behavior, including data race conditions, is a major time sink in all non-hobby C or C++ projects.
What bad ideas from C++ did Rust copy, in your opinion? I'm really not sure what you mean. Smart pointers? RAII?
There are plenty of languages that enable quick iteration, prototyping, or "just getting shit done". If that's what you need, why not use them? I'm personally more concerned about the finished product.
...I don't use them as "scare quotes", it's more like in "can't you just..." - e.g. something that looks simple from the outside but is hard to do / complex on the inside - e.g. I do recognize the work that went into Rust's memory safety, but I question the effort that went into it compared to more traditional memory safety methods, especially when looking at the restrictions that Rust imposed on the programmer.
> What bad ideas from C++ did Rust copy, in your opinion?
Mainly doing things in the stdlib that should be built into the language (e.g. Option, Result, Box, Cell, RefCell, Arc, and probably a dozen other types...), resulting in what I call 'bird droppings syntax' of too many chained function calls to get to the thing you actually want (.unwrap, .into_iter, .iter, .iter_mut, .as_ref, .as_mut, .expect, .unwrap_or_else, .unwrap_or_default, .ok, .ok_or_else, .and_then, .or_else ... like, wtf?). The absurd amount of `::` and `<>` in typical Rust code. The stdlib doing memory allocations behind your back through a global allocator - which we know from C++ do be a really bad idea for decades already... etc etc... I think most Rust programmers are blind towards those issues the same way that C++ programmers are blind towards C++ issues (which is another thing both language ecosystems have in common though).
This has been not my experience at all in the ~6 years I've been writing Zig. I started having very little experience writing C (<1000, lines all written while in university) and since day 1 Zig has been a tremendous improvement over it, even back when it was at version 0.4.0.
People do systems programming in rust, but that's not really what most of the community is doing. And it's DEFINITELY not what the standard library is designed for.
As someone who haven't done any systems programming after university: wait, what?
I was under impression that this is exactly what people where doing with Rust.(system apps, even linux kernel, no?)
If not - what do they (most if the community) are doing with Rust?
Some people definitely do systems programming in, but it's a minority. The std library is not set up for it at all, you need something like rustix, but even that results in very unidiomatic ("unsafe") rust code.
In Zig it's all in the std library by default. Because it's a systems programming language, first and foremost.
As far as I can tell, it contains many, many features that are irrelevant outside of systems programming scenarios with highly particular needs.
In zig it's std.posix.mmap.
And I don't think that including every feature of every possible OS is a sensible position to have for a standard library. Or would you argue that it should also include things like `CreateWindowExW()`?
If all you use is the Rust standard library, you can be reasonably sure that your program works on all platforms, and memory mapping is something that is highly platform specific, even among POSIX-likes. I would not like to attempt designing a singular cross-platform API for it that has to be maintained in perpetuity.
(There are a few OS-specific APIs in the Rust standard library, mostly because they are required anyway for things like I/O and process management. But the limit has to be set somewhere.)
In Zig it's exactly the same except that they decided to provide the POSIX platform specific APIs, which if you're using a POSIX system is I guess useful and otherwise it's dead weight.
It's a choice. I don't think it's a good choice but it's a choice.
Zig has become my go-to for projects where I would previously have reached for C, largely because Zig has such good compatibility with other C projects.
Rust, on the other hand, is a completely different beast. It is very different from C, and it is far more complicated. That makes it harder to justify using, whereas Zig is a very easy choice as an alternative to using C itself.
Do you consider Rust enums 'proper sum types'? If yes what are Zig's tagged unions missing?
E.g.:
const Variant = union(enum) {
int: i32,
boolean: bool,
none,
fn truthy(self: Variant) bool {
return switch (self) {
Variant.int => |x_int| x_int != 0,
Variant.boolean => |x_bool| x_bool,
Variant.none => false,
};
}
};I think fact that Zig can be used as a C/C++ cross compiler is brilliant.
I finally got it working. I had to flush both the encrypted writer and then the stream writer. There was also some issues with reading. Streaming works, but it'll always return 0 on the first read because Writer.Fixed doesn't implement sendFile, and thus after the first call, it internally switches from streaming mode to reading mode (1) and then things magically work.
Currently trying to get compression re-enabled in my websocket library.
(1) https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/47a2f2ddae9cc47ff6df7a71...
Since 0.15, though, I feel too dumb for Zig’s ArrayList.
My info could be outdated - I don't follow Zig very closely, but I am curious.
No promises about potential future changes though :^)
stop50•3h ago
The weird interface of go is probably due the fact that some interfaces can be used to extemd the writer like the hijacker interface (ResponseWriter.(http.Hijacker)) and the request object is used multiple times with different middlewares interacting with it. In short: request does not need to be extended, but the response can be an websocket, an wrapped tcp connection or something else.
benreesman•3h ago
You can lift/unlift in or out of arbitrary IO, in some languages one direction is called a mock, in other languages the opposite is called unsafeFoo.
Andrew Kelley independently rediscovered on a live stream 30 years of the best minds in Haskell writing papers.
So the future is Zig. He got there first.
pjmlp•3h ago
benreesman•3h ago
Compute is getting tight, lots of trends, the age of C++ is winding down gracefully. The age of Zig is emerging delibetately, and the stuff in the middle will end up in the same historical trash bin as everything else in the Altman Era: the misfortunes of losing sight of the technology.
pjmlp•2h ago
The age of C++ is going great, despite all its warts and unsafety, thanks to compiler frameworks like GCC and LLVM, games industry, GPGPU and Khronos APIs.
Even if C++ loses everywhere else, it has enough industry mindshare to keep being relevant.
Same applies to C, in the context of UNIX clones, POSIX, Khronos, embedded.
Being like Modula-2 or Object Pascal in safety, in C like syntax, isn't enough.
benreesman•2h ago
Rust makes false promises in practical situations. It invented a notion of safety that is neither well posed, nor particularly useful, nor compatible with ergonomic and efficient computing.
It's speciality is marketing and we already know the bounding box on its impact or relevance. "Vibe coding" will be a more colorful and better remembered mile marker of this lousy decade in computers than Rust, which will be an obscurity in an appendix in 100 years.
simonask•2h ago
"Makes predictions to within a quantifiable epsilon"? What in the world do you mean? The industry experience with C++ is that it is extremely difficult (i.e., expensive) to get right, and C++20 or newer does not change anything about that. Whatever "epsilon" you are talking about here surely has to be very large for a number bearing that sobriquet.
As for the mindless anti-Rust slander... I'm not sure it's worth addressing, because it reflects a complete lack of the faintest idea about what it actually does, or what problem it solves. Let me just say there's a reason the Rust community is rife with highly competent C++ refugees.
sshine•1h ago
I doubt it.
I'm teaching a course on C this fall. As textbook I've chosen "Modern C" by Jens Gustedt (updated for C23).
I'm asked by students "Why don't you choose K&R like everyone else?"
And while the book is from 1978 (ANSI C edition in 1988), and something I've read joyously more than once, I'm reminded of how decades of C programmers have been doing things "the old way" because that's how they're taught. As a result, the world is made of old C programs.
With this momentum of religiously rewriting things in Rust we see in the last few years (how many other languages have rewritten OpenSSL and the GNU coreutils?), the amount of things we depend on that was incidentally rewritten in Rust grows significantly.
Hopefully people won't be writing Rust in 100 years. Since 100 years ago mathematicians were programming mechanical calculators and analog computers, and today kids are making games. But I bet you a whole lot of infrastructure still runs Rust.
In fact, anything that is convenient to Vibe code in the coming years will drown out other languages by volume. Rust ain't so bad for vibe coding.
pjmlp•1h ago
There is a place to learn about history of computing, and that is where K&R C book belongs to.
Not only is the old way, this is from the age of dumb C compilers, not taking advantage of all stuff recent standards allow compiler writers to take to next level on optimizations, not always with expected results.
Maybe getting students to understand the ISO C draft is also an interesting exercise.
Ygg2•1h ago
Please stop. Rust's promise is very simple. You get safety without the tracing GC. It also gives you tools to implement your own safe abstraction on top of unsafe, but you are mostly on your own (miri, asan, and ubsan can still be used).
Neither Rust nor Ada nor Lean nor Haskell can guarantee there are no errors in their implementations.
Similarly, none of the listed languages can even try to show that a bad actor can't write bad code or design bad hardware in a way that maintains their promises. If you need that, you need to invent the Omniscient Oracle, not a program.
I hate this oft repeated Nirvana fallacy. Yes, Rust is offering you a car with seatbelts and airbags. It is not offering a car that guarantees immortality in the event of a universe collapse.
zelphirkalt•1h ago
Ygg2•6m ago
Because it's technically true. The best source of true!
Sorry, meant to say the opposite of truth. Neither Rust nor Ada.Spark, which use LLVM as a backend, can prove via their implementation there are no errors in LLVM.
In the same way, I can't guarantee tomorrow I won't be killed by a rogue planet hitting Earth at 0.3c. So I should probably start gambling and doing coke, because we might be killed tomorrow.
> Every single project needs to "fix" the same kind of safety issues over and over again
I doubt that's the biggest problem. Each of the unsafe libraries in C/C++/Zig can be perfectly safe given invariants X and Y, respectively. What happens if you have two (or more) libraries with subtly non-compatible invariants? You get non-composable libraries. You end up with the reverse problem of the NPM world.
geon•1h ago
kelnos•4m ago