[codethief]

> Yeah but what is up with all that "." and "@"

"." = the "namespace" (in this case an enum) is implied, i.e. the compiler can derive it from the function signature / type.

"@" = a language built-in.

[johnisgood]

I know what these are, but they are noise to me.

[Simran-B]

It's not annotation noise however, it's syntax noise.

[johnisgood]

Thanks for the correction. Is it really not "annotation"? What makes the difference?

[Simran-B]

You're not providing extra information to the compiler, clarifying the intent, but merely follow the requirements of the language when writing . to infer the type or @ to use a built-in function.

[johnisgood]

Thank you. My previous comment got down-voted despite it being a legitimate question, weird times.

[kprotty]

C++'s `::` vs Zig's `.`

C++'s `__builtin_` (or arguably `_`/`__`) vs Zig's `@`

[johnisgood]

I hate C++, too.

[pyrolistical]

It is waaaaaaay less noisy than c++

C syntax may look simpler but reading zig is more comfy bc there is less to think about than c due to explicit allocator.

There is no hidden magic with zig. Only ugly parts. With c/c++ you can hide so much complexity in a dangerous way

[johnisgood]

FWIW: I hate C++, too.