[naasking]

Using a different type vs. a different syntax can be an important usability consideration, particularly since D also has templates and other features, where Zig provides only the comptime type for all of them. Homogeneity can also be a nice usability win, though there are downsides as well.

[WalterBright]

Zig's use of comptime in a function argument makes it a template :-/

I bet if you use such a function with different comptime arguments, compile it, and dump the assembler you'll see that function appearing multiple times, each with somewhat different code generated for it.

[naasking]

> Zig's use of comptime in a function argument makes it a template :-/

That you can draw an isomorphism between two things does not mean they are ergonomically identical.

[pcwalton]

When we're responding to quite valid points about other languages having essentially the same features as Zig with subjective claims about ergonomics, the idea that Zig comptime is "revolutionary" is looking awfully flimsy. I agree with Walter: Zig isn't doing anything novel. Picking some features while leaving others out is something that every language does; if doing that is enough to make a language "revolutionary", then every language is revolutionary. The reality is a lot simpler and more boring: for Zig enthusiasts, the set of features that Zig has appeals to them. Just like enthusiasts of every programming language.

[naasking]

> Picking some features while leaving others out is something that every language does; if doing that is enough to make a language "revolutionary", then every language is revolutionary.

Picking a set of well motivated and orthogonal features that combine well in flexible ways is definitely enough to be revolutionary if that combination permits expressive programming in ways that used to be unwieldy, error-prone or redundant, eg. "redundant" in the sense that you have multiple ways of expressing the same thing in overlapping but possibly incompatible ways. It doesn't follow that every language must be revolutionary just because they pick features too, there are conditions to qualify.

For systems programming, I think Zig is revolutionary. I don't think any other language matches Zig's cross-compilation, cross-platform and metaprogramming story in such a simple package. And I don't even use Zig, I'm just a programming language theory enthusiast.

> I agree with Walter: Zig isn't doing anything novel.

"Novel" is relative. Anyone familiar with MetaOCaml wouldn't have seen Zig as particularly novel in a theoretical sense, as comptime is effectively a restricted multistage language. It's definitely revolutionary for an industry language though. I think D has too much baggage to qualify, even if many Zig expressions have translations into D.

[pron]

> Picking some features while leaving others out is something that every language does; if doing that is enough to make a language "revolutionary", then every language is revolutionary.

You can say that about the design of any product. Yet, once in a while, we get revolutionary designs (even if every feature in isolation is not completely novel) when the choice of what to include and what to leave out is radically different from other products in the same category in a way that creates a unique experience.

[matklad]

>for Zig enthusiasts, the set of features that Zig has appeals to them. Just like enthusiasts of every programming language.

I find it rather amusing that it's a Java and a Rust enthusiast who are extolling Zig approach here! I am not particularly well read with respect to programming languages, but I don't recall many languages which define generic pair as

    fn Pair(A: type, B: type) type {
        return struct { fst: A, snd: B };
    }

The only one that comes to mind is 1ML, and I'd argue that it is also revolutionary.

[pcwalton]

Well, if you strip away the curly braces and return statement, that's just a regular type definition. Modeling generic types as functions from types to types is just System F, which goes back to 1975. Turing-complete type-level programming is common in tons of languages, from TypeScript to Scala to Haskell.

I think the innovation here is imperative type-level programming--languages that support type-level programming are typically functional languages, or functional languages at the type level. Certainly interesting, but not revolutionary IMO.

[matklad]

The thing is, this is not type-level programming, this is term-level programming. That there's no separate language of types is the feature. Functional/imperative is orthogonal. You can imagine functional Zig which writes

    Pair :: type -> type -> type
    let Pair a b = product a b 

This is one half of the innovation, dependent-types lite.

The second half is how every other major feature is expressed _directly_ via comptime/partial evaluation, not even syntax sugar is necessary. Generic, macros, and conditional compilation are the three big ones.

[WalterBright]

I might be misunderstanding something, but this is how it works in D:

    struct Pair(A, B) { A fst; B snd; }

    Pair!(int, float) p; // declaration of p as instance of Pair

It's just a struct with the addition of type parameters.

[pron]

I'm sorry, but not being able to see that a design that uses a touchscreen to eliminate the keyboard is novel despite the touchscreen itself having been used elsewhere alongside a keyboard, shows a misunderstanding of what design is.

Show me the language that used a general purpose compile-time mechanisms to avoid specialised features such as generics/templates, interfaces/typeclasses, macros, and conditional compilation before Zig, then I'll say that language was revolutionary.

I also find it hard to believe that you can't see how replacing all these features with a single one (that isn't AST macros) is novel. I'm not saying you have to think it's a good idea -- that's a matter of personal taste (at least until we can collect more objective data) -- but it's clearly novel.

I don't know all the languages in the world and it's possible there was a language that did that before Zig, but none of the languages mentioned here did. Of course, it's possible that no other language did that because it's stupid, but that doesn't mean it's not novel (especially as the outcome does not appear stupid on the face of it).

[pcwalton]

But Zig's comptime only approximates the features you mentioned; it doesn't fully implement them. Which is what the original article is saying. To use your analogy, using a touchscreen to eliminate a keyboard isn't very impressive if your touchscreen keyboard is missing keys.

If you say that incomplete implementations count, then I could argue that the C preprocessor subsumes generics/templates, interfaces/typeclasses†, macros, and conditional compilation.

†Exercise for the reader: build a generics system in the C preprocessor that #error's out if the wrong type is passed using the trick in [1].

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/45450646

[pron]

> But Zig's comptime only approximates the features you mentioned; it doesn't fully implement them

That's like saying that a touchscreen device without a keyboard only approximates a keyboard but doesn't fully implement one. The important thing is that the feature performs the duty of those other features.

> If you say that incomplete implementations count, then I could argue that the C preprocessor subsumes generics/templates, interfaces/typeclasses†, macros, and conditional compilation.

There are two problems with this, even if we assumed that the power of C's preprocessor is completely equivalent to Zig's comptime:

First, C's preprocessor is a distinct meta-language; one major point of Zig's comptime is that the metalanguage is the same language as the object language.

Second, it's unsurprising that macros -- whether they're more sophisticated or less -- can do the role of all those other features. As I wrote in my original comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43745438) one of the exciting things about Zig is that a feature that isn't macros (and is strictly weaker than macros, as it's referentially transparent) can replace them for the most part, while enjoying a greater ease of understanding.

I remember that one of my first impressions of Zig was that it evoked the magic of Lisp (at least that was my gut feeling), but in a completely different way, one that doesn't involve AST manipulation, and doesn't suffer from many of the problems that make List macros problematic (i.e. creating DSLs with their own rules). I'm not saying it may not have other problems, but that is very novel.

I hadn't seen any such fresh designs in well over a decade. Now, it could be that I simply don't know enough languages, but you also haven't named other languages that work on this design principle, so I think my excitement was warranted. I'll let you know if I think that's not only a fresh and exciting design but also a good one in ten years.

BTW, I have no problem with you finding Zig's comptime unappealing to your tastes or even believing it suffers from fundamental issues that may prove problematic in practice (although personally I think that, when considering both pros and cons of this design versus the alternatives, there's some promise here). I just don't understand how you can say that the design isn't novel while not naming one other language with a similar core design: a mechanism for partial evaluation of the object language (with access to additional reflective operations) that replace those other features I mentioned (by performing their duty, if not exactly their mode of operation).

For example, I've looked at Terra, but it makes a distinction between the meta language and the object (or "runtime") language.