• Giooschi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Zig is “c”, but modern and safe.

    Zig is safer than C, but not on a level that is comparable to Rust, so it lacks its biggest selling point. Unfortunately just being a more modern language is not enough to sell it.

    So imagine if trying to fit in a C-like cousin failed

    C++ was not added to Linux because Linus Torvalds thought it was an horrible language, not because it was not possible to integrate in the kernel.

    • khorovodoved
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Zig has other selling points, that are arguably more suitable for system programming. Rust’s obsession with safety (which is still not absolute even in rust) is not the only thing to consider.

        • steeznson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          UB is only one class of error though. I get nervous when people talk about re-writing battle hardened code which has been used - and reviewed by the community - for decades because there are going to be many subtleties and edge cases which are not immediately apparent for any developer attempting a re-implementation.

          • teolan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Like sudo that has had zero days lurking for 10 years?

            I’m not advocating for reimplementing stuff for no good reason though.

          • Auli@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            You mean old code that has bugs that are no just being discovered. Battle hardened code and many eyeballs means nothing.