[keybored]

comptime can’t outright replace many language features because it chooses different tradeoffs to get to where it wants. You get a “one thing to rule all” at the expense of less declarative use.

Which I already said in my original comment. But here’s a source that I didn’t find last time: https://strongly-typed-thoughts.net/blog/zig-2025#comptime-i...

Academics have thought about evaluating things at compile time (or any time) for decades. No, you can’t just slot in eval at a weird place that no one ever thought of (they did) and immediately solve a suite of problems that other languages use multiple discrete features for (there’s a reason they do that).

[throwawaymaths]

> comptime can’t outright replace many language features because it chooses different tradeoffs to get to where it wants.

You're missing the point. I don't have any theory to qualify this, but:

I've worked in a language with lisp-ey macros, and I absolutely hate hate hate when people build too-clever DSLs that hide a lot of weird shit like creating variable names or pluralizing database tables for me, swapping camel-case and snake case, creating a ton of logic under the hood that's hard to chase.

Zig's comptime for the most part shys you away from those sorts of things. So yes, it's not fully feature parity in the language theory sense, but it really blocks you or discourages you away from shit you don't need to do, please for the love of god don't. Hard to justify theoretically. it's real though.

It's just something you notice after working with it for while.

[keybored]

No, you are clearly missing the point because I laid out concrete critiques about how Zig doesn’t replace certain concrete language features with One Thing to Rule Them All. All in reply to someone complimenting Zig on that same subject.

That you want to make a completely different point about macros gone wild is not my problem.