That thing, right here, is probably going to be rewritten 5 times and what not.

If you are actively using Zig (for some reasons?), I guess it's a great news, but for the Grand Majority of the devs in here, it's like an announcement that it's raining in Kuldîga...

So m'yeah. I was following Zig for a while, but I just don't think I am going to see a 1.0 release in my lifetime.

And tbh, I take a 'living' language any day over a language that's ossified because of strict backward compatibility requirements. When updating a 3rd-party dependency to a new major version it's also expected that the code needs to be fixed (except in Zig those breaking changes are in the minor versions, but for 0.x that's also expected).

I actually hope that even after 1.x, Zig will have a strategy to keep the stdlib lean by aggressively removing deprecated interfaces (maybe via separate stdlib interface versions, e.g. `const std = @import("std/v1");`, those versions could be slim compatibility wrappers around a single core stdlib implementation.

Maybe you would, but >95% of serious projects wouldn't. The typical lifetime of a codebase intended for a lasting application is over 15 or 20 years (in industrial control or aerospace, where low-level languages are commonly used, codebases typically last for over 30 years), and while such changes are manageable early on, they become less so over time.

You say "strict" as if it were out of some kind of stubborn princple, where in fact backward compatibility is one of the things people who write "serious" software want most. Backward compatibility is so popular that at some point it's hard to find any feature that is in high-enough demand to justify breaking it. Even in established languages there's always a group of people who want somethng badly enough they don't mind breaking compatibility for it, but they're almost always a rather small minority. Furthermore, a good record of preserving compatibility in the past makes a language more attractive even for greenfield projects written by people who care about backward compatibility, who, in "serious" software, make up the majority. When you pick a language for such a project, the expectation of how the language will evolve over the next 20 years is a major concern on day one (a startup might not care, but most such software is not written by startups).

Either those applications are actively maintained, or they aren't. Part of the active maintenance is to decide whether to upgrade to a new compiler toolchain version (e.g. when in doubt, "never change a running system"), old compiler toolchains won't suddenly stop working.

FWIW, trying to build a 20 or 30 year old C or C++ application in a modern compiler also isn't exactly trivial, depending on the complexity of the code base (especially when there's UB lurking in the code, or the code depends on specific compiler bugs to be present - e.g. changing anything in a project setup always comes with risks attached).

Of course, but you want to make that as easy as you can. Compatibility is never binary (which is why I hate semantic versioning), but you should strive for the greatest compatibility for the greatest portion of users.

> FWIW, trying to build a 20 or 30 year old C or C++ application in a modern compiler also isn't exactly trivial

I know that well (especially for C++; in C the situation is somewhat different), and the backward compatibility of C++ compilers leaves much to be desired.

It’s not like Clojure or Common Lisp, where a decades old software still runs, mostly unmodified, the same today, any changes mainly being code written for a different environment or even compiler implementation. This is largely because they take breaking user code way more seriously. Alot of code written in these languages seem to have similar timelessness too. Software can be “done”.

No, not even remotely. ABI-stability in C++ means that C++ is stuck with suboptimal implementations of stdlib functions, whereas Rust only stabilizes the exposed interface without stabilizing implementation details.

> Unfortunately editions don't allow breaking changes in the standard library

Surprisingly, this isn't true in practice either. The only thing that Rust needs to guarantee here is that once a specific symbol is exported from the stdlib, that symbol needs to be exported forever. But this still gives an immense amount of flexibility. For example, a new edition could "remove" a deprecated function by completely disallowing any use of a given symbol, while still allowing code on an older edition to access that symbol. Likewise, it's possible to "swap out" a deprecated item for a new item by atomically moving the deprecated item to a new namespace and making the existing item an alias to that new location, then in the new edition you can change the alias to point to the new item instead while leaving the old item accessible (people are exploring this possibility for making non-poisoning mutexes the default in the next edition).

One business domain that Rust currently doesn't have an answer for, is selling commercial SDKs with binary libraries, which is exactly the kind of customers that get pissed off when C and C++ compilers break ABIs.

Microsoft mentions this in the adoption issues they are having with Rust, see talks from Victor Ciura, and while they can work around this with DLLs and COM/WinRT, it isn't optimal, after all Rust's safety gets reduced to the OS ABI for DLLs and COM.

Do you know one industry that likes very much tossing closed-source proprietary blobs over the wall?

Game studios, and everyone that works in the games industry providing tooling for AAA studios.

And you can still internaly have it, if your deps have sources, or compile artifacts for only allow single Rust version (additional rules may apply).

There is work on Rust ABI (crabi), but there isn't a huge push for it.

You know what else is common in the games industry? C# and NDA's.

C# means that game development is no longer a C/C++ monoculture, and if someone can make their engine or middleware usable with C# through an API shim, Native AOT, or some other integration, there are similar paths forward for using Rust, Zig, or whatever else.

NDA's means that making source available isn't as much of a concern. Quite a bit of the modern game development stack is actually source-available, especially when you're talking about game engines.

Thus it will never be even considered outside the tech bubble.

ISO C++ standard is silent on how the ABI actually looks like, the ABI not being broken in most C and C++ compilers is a consequence of customers of those compilers not being happy about breakages.

It's a straightjacket that has application in few select cases.

Things ABI prevents in C++:

- better shared_ptr

- adding UTF8 to regex

- int128_t standardisation

- make most of <cstring> constexpr

And so on: https://cor3ntin.github.io/posts/abi/

I get you might have particular criteria on this. But it's a feature that comes with huge, massive downsides.

In theory. In practice the standards committee, consisting of compiler vendors and some of their users, shape the standard, and thus the standard just so happens to conspire to avoid ABI breakages.

This is in part why Google bowed out of C++ standardization years ago.

The entire C, C ABI and standard lib specs, combined, are probably less words than the Promise spec from ECMAScript 262.

A small language that stays consistent and predictable lets developers evolve it in best practices, patterns, design choices, tooling. C has achieved all that.

No evolving language has anywhere near that freedom.

I don't want an ever evolving Zig too for what is worth. And I like Zig.

I don't think any developer can resolve all of the design tensions a programming language has, you can't make it ergonomic on its own.

But a small, modern, stable C would still be welcome, besides Odin.

Not if you look into C23, include all the compiler extensions devs keep thinking are part of ISO C, and the "C ABI" is one per each existing OS written in C.

Zig is one of my favorite new languages, I really like the cross-compiler too. I'm not a regular user yet but I'm hopeful for its long-term success as a language and ecosystem. It's still early days, beta/dev level instability is expected, and even fundamental changes in design. I think community input and feedback can be particularly valuable at this stage.

If it’s a compiler frontend-> LLVM interaction bug, I think you are commenting in the spot - it should go in a separate issue not in the PR about io_uring backend. Also, interaction bugs where a compiler frontend triggers a bug in LLVM aren’t uncommon since Rust was the first major frontend other than clang to exercise code paths. Indeed the (your?) fix in LLVM for this issue mentions Rust is impacted too.

I agree with the higher level points about stability and I don’t like Zig not being a safe language in this day and age, but I think your criticism about quality is a bit harsh if your source of this complaint is that they haven’t put a workaround for an LLVM bug.

True in general but in the cloud especially, saving server resources can make a significant impact on the bottom line. There are not nearly enough performance engineers who understand how to take inefficient systems and make improvements to move towards theoretical maximum efficiency. When the system is written in an inefficient language like Python or Node, fundamentally, you have no choice but to start to move the hotpath behind FFI and drop down to a systems language. At that point your choices are basically C, C++, Rust, or Zig. Of the four choices, Zig today is already simplest to learn, with fewer footguns, easier to work with, easier to read and write, and easier to test. And you're not going to write 100k LOC of optimized hotpath code. And when you understand the cost savings involved in reducing your compute needs by sometimes more than 90% by getting the hotpath optimized, you understand that there is very much indeed a business case to learning Zig today.

Personally, it is a huge pain to rewrite things and update dependencies because the code I am depending on is moving out from under me. I also found this to be a big problem in Rust.

And another huge upside is you have access to best of everything. As an example, I am heavily using fuzz testing and I can very easily use honggfuzz which is the best fuzzer according to all research I could find, and also according to my experience so far.

From this perspective, it doesn’t make sense to use zig over c for professional work. If I am writing a lot of code then I don’t want to rewrite it. If am writing a very small amount of code with no dependencies, then it doesn’t matter what I use and this is the only case where I think zig might make sense.

Real example: I had to wait some seconds to compile and run benchmarks for a library and it re-compiles instantly (<100ms) with c.

Zig does have a single compilation unit and that might have some advantages but in practice it is a hard disadvantage. And I didn’t ever see someone pointing this out online.

I would really recommend trying to learn c with modernC book and try to do it with c for people like me building something from scratch

With the exception of fewer foot guns, which Rust definitely takes the cake and Zig is up in second, I'd say Zig is in last place in all of these. This really screams that you aren't aware of C/C++ testing/tooling ecosystem.

I say this as a fan of Zig, by the way.

That's a very good point, actually. However...

> with fewer footguns

..the Crab People[0] would definitely quibble with that particular claim of yours.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_People of course.

I really see no advantage for Zig over Rust after you get past that 2 first two weeks.

Zig is trying to get me instant compilation and I see that as a huge advantage for Zig (even past the first 2 weeks).

I'll probably stick with Rust as my "low level language" due to its safety, type system, maturity, library ecosystem, and career opportunities.

But I remain jealous of Zig's willingness to do extreme things to make compilation faster.

A full build was definitely much faster, but not as useful. Especially when using a build system with shared networked caching (Bazel for example).

Yes those projects were a bloated mess, as it always seems to be.

And avoid header libraries, C++ isn't a scripting language.

But I digress. I was thinking of Zig in comparison to C when I wrote that. I don't have a problem conceding that point, but I still believe the overall argument is correct to point to Zig specifically in the case of writing code to optimize a hotpath behind FFI; it is much easier to get to more optimal code and cross-compilation is easier to boot (i.e. to support Darwin/AppleSilicon for dev laptops, and both Linux/x64 and Linux/arm64 for cloud servers).

In theory no. In practice it really does.

> unsafe code is still unsafe

Ok, but most rust code is not unsafe while all zig code is unsafe.

> and the borrow checker and Rust's language complexity are their own kind of footguns

Please elaborate. They are something to learn but I don’t see the footgun. A footgun is a surprisingly defect that’s pointed at your foot and easy to trigger (ie doing something wrong and your foot blows off). I can’t think how the borrow checker causes that when it’s the exact opposite - you can’t ever create a footgun without doing unsafe because it won’t even compile.

> but I still believe the overall argument is correct to point to Zig specifically in the case of writing code to optimize a hotpath behind FFI; it is much easier to get to more optimal code and cross-compilation is easier to boot (i.e. to support Darwin/AppleSilicon for dev laptops, and both Linux/x64 and Linux/arm64 for cloud servers).

I agree cross compilation with zig is significantly easier but Rust isn’t that hard, especially with the cross-rs crate making it significantly simpler. Performance, Rust is going to be better - zig makes you choose between safety and performance and even in unsafe mode there’s various things that cause better codegen. For example zig follows the C path of manual noalias annotations which has been proven to be non scalable and difficult to make operational. Rust does this for all variables automatically because it’s not allowed in the language.

Close, but not the way I think of a footgun. A footgun is code that was written in a naive way, looks correct, submitted, and you find out after submitting it that it was erroneous. Good design makes it easy for people to do the right thing and difficult to do the wrong thing.

In Rust it is extremely easy to hit the borrow checker including for code which is otherwise safe and which you know is safe. You walk on eggshells around the borrow checker hoping that it won't fire and shoot you in the foot and force you to rewrite. It is not a runtime footgun, it is a devtime footgun.

Which, to be fair, is sometimes desired. When you have a 1m+ LOC codebase and dozens of junior engineers working on it and requirements for memory safety and low latency requirements. Fair enough trade-off in that case.

But in Zig, you can just call defer on a deinit function. Complexity is the eternal enemy, and this is just a much simpler approach. The price of that simplicity is that you need to behave like an adult, which if the codebase (hotpath optimization) is <1k LOC I think is eminently reasonable.

You’re contradicting yourself a bit here I think. Erroneous code generally won’t compile whereas in Zig it will happily do so. Also, Zig has plenty of foot guns (eg forgetting to call defer on a deinit but even misusing noalias or having an out of bounds result in memory corruption). IMHO the zig footgun story with respect to UB behavior is largely unchanged relative to C/C++. It’s mildly better but it’s closer to C/C++ than being a safe language and UB is a huge ass footgun in any moderate complexity codebase.

The only major UB from C that zig doesn’t address is use after free afaik. How is that largely unchanged???

Just having an actual strong type system w/o the “billion dollar mistake” is a large change.

* Double free

* Out of bounds array access

* Dereferencing null pointers

* Misaligned pointer dereference

* Accessing uninitialized memory

* Signed integer overflow

* Accessing a union field for which the active tag is something else.

https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

(Btw: you can't null pointer dereference in zig without using the navigation operator which will panic on null; you can't misalign a pointer unless you use @alignCast which will also create a panic)

But also, there is no reason why it should have to be in the main compiler. I've architected it as a dlload plugin. It's even crazier! The output is a zig program which you must compile and run to get the final result.

Some of those tools are static, others are dynamic, some require a special build, others are hybrid, others exist on all modern IDEs.

So it can be a mix of lint, clang tidy, VS analysis, Clion, ASan, USBsan, hardned runtimes, contracts (Frama-C), PVS, PurifyPlus, Insure++,....

If you believe I mischaracterized zig, please enlighten me what I got wrong specifically rather than attacking my ad hominem

Arguing about whether certain static analysis should be opt in or opt out is just extremely uninteresting. It’s not like folks are auditing the unsafe blocks in their dependencies anyways.

If you want to talk about actual type system issues that’s more interesting.

The proof is in the pudding. TigerBeetle despite having a quite opinionated style still almost hit by UB and basically got lucky it wasn’t a worse failure. By contrast, even though unsafe isn’t audited for all dependencies, it does in practice seem to make UB extremely unlikely. And there’s work ongoing in the ecosystem to create safe abstractions to remove existing unsafe into well tested and centralized things

There is no point throwing it all away to get back to the starting line.

It has issues like panicking or segfaulting when using some data types (arrow array types) in the wrong place.

It is extremely difficult to write an arrow implementation in Rust.

It is much easier to do it in zig or c(without strict aliasing).

I also had the same experience with glommio in Rust.

Also the binary that we produce compiles in several minutes and is above 30mb. This is an insane amount of bloat. And unfortunately I don’t think there is another feasible way of doing this kind of work in rust, because it is so hard to write proper low level code.

I don’t agree with noalias being bad personally. I fuond it is the only way to do it. It is much harder to write code with pointers with implicit aliasing like c has by default and rust has as the only option. And you don’t ever need to use noalias except some rare places.

To make it clear, I mean the huge footgun in rust is producing a ton of bloat and subpar code because you can’t write much and you end up depending on too many libraries

Nothing is forcing you to do that other than it’s easy to add dependencies. I don’t see how zig is much different

Hashmap is a good example to this. I was able to fairly easily port some parts of hashbrown to c but I’m pretty sure I can’t write that code in Rust in a reasonable amount of time.

https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

Yes, with almost complete lack of documentation and learning materials it is definitely the easiest language to learn.

https://ziglang.org/learn/

I remember when learning Zig, the documentation for the language itself was extensive, complete, and easily greppable due to being all on one page.

The standard library was a lot less intuitive, but I suspect that has more to do with the amount of churn it's still going through.

The build system also needs more extensive documentation in the same way that the stdlib does, but it has a guide that got me reasonably far with what came out of the box.

Its Zig 0.15 effort started in August and was only complete in October (see first PR at https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8372). And many issues were encountered and solved along the way. And of course during all of this they also encountered an issue in Zig itself: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/24627

[1] https://kristoff.it/blog/zig-new-async-io/

My main Zig project will need over 1,000 edits to get it up there :O I've already had Claude spec out the changes required. I'll just have it or Codex or whatever fork itself into one agent per file and bang on it (for the stuff I can't regex myself) ;)

But the IO thing is frankly a good idea. I/O dependency injection, when I've used it in the past, has made testing quite a bit simpler (such as routing any I/O stream into a string to assert on) and the code much easier to reason about. The extra argument is a bit annoying, but that's the price of purity and it's worth it.

It is such a readable language that I found it easier learning the API than most languages.

Zig has this on its side. Reading the unit tests directly from the code give, most of the time, a good example too.

I hear great things about the language but only have so many hours in the day and so many usable neurons to spend in that day. Someday it would be nice to play with it.

The easiest way to embrace any new language is to have a compelling use to use it. I've not hit that point yet.

This would translate as ~"eats pussy", where "broûter" is a verb reserved for animals feeding on grass, implying a hefty bush.

Though perhaps the Zig developers have promised this will not happen.

Lol, I’ll borrow this.

Kudos Zig contributors!

I am not understanding the point here, do people expect they ship 1.0 before they know it is good or ready?

No wonder why software quality have deteriorated rapidly in the past 20 years.

LLMs are good at dealing with things they've seen before, not at novel things.

When novel things arise, you will either have to burn a shed ton of tokens on "reasoning", hand hold them (so you're doing advanced find and replace in this example, where you have to be incredibly precise and detailed about your language, to the point it might be quicker to just make the changes), or you have to wait until the next trained model that has seen the new pattern emerges, or quite often, all of the above.

Real-world example: Claude isn't familiar with the latest Zig, so I had it write a language guide for 0.15.2 (here: https://gist.github.com/pmarreck/44d95e869036027f9edf332ce9a...) which pointed out all the differences, and that's been extremely helpful in having me not even have to touch a line of code to do the updates.

On top of that, for any Zig dependency I pull in which is written to an earlier version, I have forked it and applied these updates correctly (or it has, under my guidance, really), 100% of the time.

On the off chance that guide is not in its context, it has seen the expected warning or error message, googled it, and done the correct correction 100% of the time. Which is exactly what a human would do.

Let's play the falsifiability game: Find me a real-world example of an upgrade to a newer API from the just-previous-to-that API that a modern LLM will fail to do correctly. Your choice of beer or coffee awaits you if you provide a link to it.

that’s why it sounds to me like these people commenting haven’t even used these models yet.

Tbh, while impressive that it appears to work, that guide looks very tailored to the Zig stdlib subset used in your projects and also looks like a lot more work than just fixing the errors manually ;) For a large code base which would amortise the cost of this guide I still wouldn't trust the automatic update without carefully reviewing each change.

I still wouldn't want to deal with that much churn in my language, but I fully believe an agent could handle the majority of, if not all of, the migration between versions.

https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/228

It just proves that there is not much of an improvement if they can get away with, it isn't? But hey, I am sure that the benchmarks are all saying otherwise.

"Microsoft bad, Linux good" kind of comments are all over the place. There is no more in depth discussions about projects anymore. Add the people linking their blogs only to sell you thier services for an imaginary problem, and you get HN 2026.

It's maybe the time to find another tech media. If you know one, I would be glad to know.

https://github.com/Microsoft/WSL/issues/873#issuecomment-425...

A comment like yours is just like saying: "I know a buggy open-source software, why would I trust that other open-source project? The open-source community burned all possible goodwill".

There is no CEO of open source, there are no open-source shareholders, there are no open-source quarterly earnings reports, there are no open-source P&G policies (with or without stack ranking), and so on.