[insanitybit]

> and should not try zig?

Because it isn't memory safe. I honestly think it's beyond the point of "irresponsible" and well into "negligence" that we're still developing unsafe technologies - people are being harmed by this choice. It's one thing when you have to target specific platforms and maybe Rust wasn't an option or whatever, but the reasons to choose unsafe languages at this point are vanishingly small.

Zig is very cool, I love many aspects of it. I'll never touch it, I'll always advocate against it tbh. I'd probably advocate that software written in languages like Zig be flagged for FEDRAMP and other environments since devs seem to not care unless they're legally barred from making these sorts of choices.

[Zakis1]

I completely agree. Zig has a nicer DX no doubt - no fighting the borrow checker etc. But if you are are writing software for other people they don't care about how nice your developer experience is, they only want the software to work correctly - and how can you guarantee that the software you wrote does what you expect it to do if it's not memory safe?

[beanjuiceII]

how does memory safety guarantee that software does what you expect?

[rocqua]

It doesn’t fully guarantee that. But it guarantees you don’t have a huge class of bugs. And it makes concurrency a lot easier to reason about.

No system will likely ever guarantee that software does what you expect. That runs into the halting problem, and practically runs into a verbosity problem. But that doesn’t mean systems that give scoped guarantees aren’t amazing for building (and iterating on) reliable software.

[beanjuiceII]

> I'd probably advocate that software written in languages like Zig be flagged for FEDRAMP

this is an insane take

[insanitybit]

Why? It seems sort of obvious. FEDRAMP is about specific assurances (like FIPS), memory safety is an obvious one.

[yarn_]

thank you for this truly deranged comment

[insanitybit]

As opposed to yours?