[ozgrakkurt]

Compared to C:

Discriminated unions, error handling, comptime, defer.

Better default integer type casting, ability to choose between releaseSafe/releaseFast

And probably other things.

As for comparison to Rust, you do want very low level memory handling for writing databases as an example. It is extremely difficult to write low level libraries in Rust

[simonask]

I think the argument is that it is also extremely difficult to write low level libraries in Zig, just as it is in C. You will just only notice the difficulty at some later point after writing the code, potentially in production.

[flohofwoe]

> low level libraries in Zig, just as it is in C

Did you write any Zig code yet? In terms of enforced correctness in the language (e.g. no integer promotion, no implicit 'dangerous' casts, null-safety, enforced error handling, etc...) and runtime safety (range-, nullptr-, integer-overflow-checks etc...), Zig is much closer to Rust than it is to C and C++.

It "just" doesn't solve static memory safety and some (admittedly important) temporal memory safety issues (aka "use-after-free"), but it still makes it much harder to accidentially trigger memory corruption as a side effect in most situations that C and C++ let slip through via a mix of compile errors and runtime checks (and you get ASAN/UBSAN automatically enabled in debug builds, a debug allocator which detects memory leaks and use-after-free for heap-allocations (unfortunately not for stack allocations), and proper runtime stack traces - things that many C/C++ toolchains are still missing or don't enable by default).

There is still one notable issue: returning a reference to stack memory from a function - this is something that many unexperienced Zig programmers seem to stumble into, especially since Zig's slice syntax looks so 'innocent' (slices look too similar to arrays, but arrays are values, while slices are references - e.g. 'fat pointers') - and which IMHO needs some sort of solution (either a compile time error via watertight escape analysis, or at least some sort runtime check which panics when trying to access 'stale' data on the stack) - and maybe giving slices their own distinct syntax that doesn't overlap with arrays might also help a bit.

[simonask]

I mean, there's no question that Zig, also in its current state, is vast improvement over C or even C++ - for the "small stuff". It is much more pleasant to use.

But there is still the "big stuff" - the things that have a fundamental, architectural impact. Things like: Will my program be multithreaded? Will I have many systems that interact? Will my program be maximally memory-efficient? Do I have the capacity (or money) to ensure correctness if I say "yes" to any of that?

The most important consideration in any software project is managing architectural complexity. Zig is better, yes, but not a paradigm shift. If you say "yes" to any of the above, you are in the same world of pain (or expenses) as you would be in C or C++. This is the reason that Rust is interesting: It makes things feasible/cheap that were previously very hard/expensive, at a fundamental level.

[flohofwoe]

> Zig is better, yes, but not a paradigm shift.

But it doesn't have to be and it shouldn't. Rust also isn't a paradigm shift, it "just" solved static memory safety (admittedly a great engineering feat) but other languages solved memory safety too decades ago, just with more of it happening at runtime.

But in many other areas Rust copied too many bad ideas from C++ (and many of those "other things" Zig already does much better than Rust - but different people will have vastly different opinions about whether one solution is actually better than another - so discussions about those features usually run in circles).

There shouldn't be a single language that solves all problems - this will just result in stagnation, it's much better to have many languages to pick from - and even if they just differ in personal opinions of the language author of how to do things or entirely subjective 'syntax sugar' features. Competition is good, monocultures are bad.

> The most important consideration in any software project is managing architectural complexity

No language will help you managing "architectural complexity" in any meaningful way except by imposing tons of arbitrary restrictions which then get in the way for smaller projects that don't need much "architecture". We have plenty of "Enterprise-scale languages" already (Java, C#, Rust, C++, ...), what we need is more languages for small teams that don't get in the way of just getting shit done, since the really interesting and innovative stuff doesn't happen in enterprise environments but in small 'basement and bedroom teams' :)

[simonask]

You put "just" in scare quotes, but that word does a lot of heavy lifting there. Static memory safety is an extremely useful thing, because it enables you to do things competent programmers would never dare in C, C++, or Zig. Things like borrowing data from one thread's stack in another thread, or returning anything but `std::string` from a function. These things were simply not feasible before without a huge bulky runtime and GC.

Keep in mind that Rust's definition of "memory safety" covers much more than just use-after-free, the most important being thread safety. It is a blanket guarantee of no undefined behavior in any code that doesn't contain the word `unsafe`. Undefined behavior, including data race conditions, is a major time sink in all non-hobby C or C++ projects.

What bad ideas from C++ did Rust copy, in your opinion? I'm really not sure what you mean. Smart pointers? RAII?

There are plenty of languages that enable quick iteration, prototyping, or "just getting shit done". If that's what you need, why not use them? I'm personally more concerned about the finished product.

[Mawr]

You know, I'm beginning to understand why people complain about the "Rust Evangelism Strike Force". Can we discuss a language without the constant "But why not Rust instead?!", pretty please?

[flohofwoe]

> You put "just" in scare quotes

...I don't use them as "scare quotes", it's more like in "can't you just..." - e.g. something that looks simple from the outside but is hard to do / complex on the inside - e.g. I do recognize the work that went into Rust's memory safety, but I question the effort that went into it compared to more traditional memory safety methods, especially when looking at the restrictions that Rust imposed on the programmer - it's a pretty hefty tradeoff (IMHO of course).

> What bad ideas from C++ did Rust copy, in your opinion?

Mainly doing things in the stdlib that should be built into the language (e.g. Option, Result, Box, Cell, RefCell, Arc, and probably a dozen other types and traits...), resulting in what I call 'bird droppings syntax' of too many chained function calls to get to the thing you actually want (.unwrap, .into_iter, .iter, .iter_mut, .as_ref, .as_mut, .expect, .unwrap_or_else, .unwrap_or_default, .ok, .ok_or_else, .and_then, .or_else ... like, wtf?). The absurd amount of `::` and `<>` in typical Rust code. The missing separation line between stdlib and language (like for-loops using the Iterator trait, or more obviously: operator overloading). The stdlib doing memory allocations behind your back through a global allocator - which we know from C++ do be a really bad idea for decades already... etc etc... I think most Rust programmers are blind towards those issues the same way that C++ programmers are blind towards C++ issues (which is another thing both language ecosystems have in common though).

[kristoff_it]

> I think the argument is that it is also extremely difficult to write low level libraries in Zig, just as it is in C.

This has been not my experience at all in the ~6 years I've been writing Zig. I started having very little experience writing C (<1000, lines all written while in university) and since day 1 Zig has been a tremendous improvement over it, even back when it was at version 0.4.0.

[simonask]

Glad you're having a great time with it. :-)

I'm informed by having shipped a lot of C++ code in my time, which has taught me a lot about actually delivering stable software. Being better than C is a very low bar here.

[ozgrakkurt]

This is a subjective argument. You don’t know me, I don’t know you. There is no meaning in assuming anything.

There is plenty of working software written with pretty much any language

[kstenerud]

> It is extremely difficult to write low level libraries in Rust

Really? I've not found it at all difficult to write low level libraries in Rust.

[ozgrakkurt]

For me it was very difficult to make an io library on io_uring that is properly safe.

Also using arena and other special allocators in different sections of the program. While maintaining hard memory limits for different sections of the program.

These are possible to do in rust but it is very difficult for me so I decided to just not do it. Otherwise I have to spend 5x the normal amount of time to make sure the library cannot be misused by the user ever.

This is pretty pointless since I’m the only one who is going to use that code anyway.

Could be skill issue or w/e but I just find zig easier to make progress in