[sramsay]

Hmm. I could substitute lots of languages for zig in that first sentence. But that doesn't invariably lead the communities that maintain those languages to utter the second.

I also doubt I have space to enumerate the languages that claim to "easily wrap c libs." None of them easily do that. That statement imagines that there's some basic consistency between APIs (and that those APIs are asking for and returning fairly simple types).

[lukaslalinsky]

The thing is, all valid C types are also valid in Zig. You just `@cImport` the header file and use it. You don't need to wrap the API, you just use it.

[pyrolistical]

I would argue zig had the best c integration. This is why it’s different.

[sramsay]

Better than C++? Better than Lua?

[throwawaymaths]

arguably Zig's c integration is better than c's c integration.

[sramsay]

How so?

(If you're hearing a combative tone, it's unintended; I'm asking seriously, because I would love for this to be true!)

[rc00]

In C, C imports are in the global namespace. The language is also compiled sequentially, so often, time is spent ensuring headers are included in the proper order, hopefully avoiding a cyclic dependency. In Zig, C imports are done in a struct with a local namespace or imported package definition and the ordering is not relevant to compilation.

I think parent means that Zig is a better language with regards to being the target for C to be imported into than C and that is the benefit of being a more modern language with flexibility following more modern conventions. This is combined with the mostly seamless ability to utilize most C functions and types without too much strife.

[throwawaymaths]

ease of cross compilation as well.

[throwawaymaths]

no combative tone detected.

for example if two c libs declare a function with the same name youre not gonna have a good time using them both from c. I believe that's not a problem in zig.