Is Zig Rust-done-right?
Will it replace C in the near future?
>>59180755
Rust is Rust done right.
>>59180755
see >>59180762
I'd rather argue Zig is C done right.
And while it sounds good to me, as long as there is only one dev behind it I don't think it will work out.
Basically the same applies to Jai, but Blow seems more willing and able to attract further developers once the core is done.
>>59180755
>Rust-done-right
Rust can't be done right, because obsessing over "safety" was always the wrong goal.
>>59180850
Blow is called blow for a reason. He blows.
const io = @import("std").io;
pub fn main(args: [][]u8) -> %void {
%%io.stdout.printf("Hello, world!\n");
}
php-tier syntax, worse than rust, and that's really saying something
>>59181253
The syntax actually means something, in Rust it's all just noise.
They're also still changing the syntax. You should tell them to change % and %% to keywords.
>>59181293
>in Rust it's all just noise.
how so?
>>59180755
Zig have already repleaced C.
>>59181331
Lots of redundant punctuation, piles of random :: < > ' and so on in type signatures, overly verbose method names, macros have different syntax (with a !) from regular function calls
I could go on but just look at any Rust code
>does not depend on libc
Already a million times better than rust
>yet another language that will replace C has spawned
>>59181372
>macros have different syntax (with a !) from regular function calls
That's actually good, so one can spot macros immediately.
>>59181590
It's not ergonomic at all. I shouldn't have to care if something is a macro.
>>59183000
>I shouldn't have to care if something is a macro.
Back to a language that hasn't any form of metaprogramming then, waste of trips.
>>59183000
>I shouldn't have to care if something is a macro.
You shouldn't have to care if something is builtin either, but @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>59181060
ROFLMAO HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER