[samatman]

This blog post is disqualified from any serious discussion, because it doesn't know the distinction between templates, which Zig's comptime constructs are not, and partial evaluation with reified types, which Zig's comptime constructs are.

It's not possible to make a positive contribution after a mistake that basic.

Here's an example of someone getting the design space correct, and therefore contributing to the discussion in a positive way. He doesn't end up liking Zig, for reasons I disagree with, but he does completely evade being not-even-wrong, which is table stakes.

https://hirrolot.github.io/posts/why-static-languages-suffer...

[Ygg2]

> This blog post is disqualified from any serious discussion, because it doesn't know the distinction between templates

Just because a blog doesn't go full type theory doesn't disqualify it from drawing conclusions based on experience and limitations incurred during actual use.

Something can be very well typed but still suck to use.

Intution doesn't need to be based on formal understanding. See Table of elements. Created by grouping elements by behavior, it turned out to be based on electron orbital configuration.

[samatman]

The central claim is that Zig's use of comptime is similar enough to templates to conflate them. That's simply incorrect. There's no value in trying to extract information from something which makes such a basic mistake as that, it doesn't contribute to a discussion, it distracts that discussion down a blind alley.

[Ygg2]

I think it's insightful to some extent. The problems encountered in C++ templates apply to Zig's comptime as well. And their solution seem to be along same lines, i.e. add constraints.

Edit: on re-reading the author doesn't understand why negative traits in Rust are a problem (not is basic boolean operation). I think they are abstracting too much and saying cows should be roughly spherical and water should roughly be a superconductor.