I’ve written software for a living in JS, C, Pascal, and Go, and I’ve tried many, many more languages. After working on a project in Zig for a year, I’m convinced that Zig is the best-designed language I’ve tried so far. Haskell comes close. At least, it’s the best-designed language for humans.
It’s not for everyone yet. It’s still unstable, and its ecosystem is small. However, both are improving.
> It’s not for everyone yet. It’s still unstable, and its ecosystem is small. However, both are improving.
To be fair, I've heard this for years now, yet the hype keeps mounting. I wasted half an hour this morning debugging a broken Zig project, all because I used a release a few months too new that removed some options used in build.zig
Releasing stable software and caring about backward compatibility is a skill many open-source maintainers don't ever want to engage with. It's so easy saying "our code is not stable, if it breaks good luck to you", but at some point it starts to smell like fear of commitment to running a serious project that people depend on.
Why such high expectations from a 0.x project? They explicitly break backwards compatibility now so they don't have to do it once 1.0 comes. There's nothing wrong with waiting a few years before trying Zig.
My point is that at some point one needs to recognize their project is used for production stuff and make stability the focus, rather than hiding behind the 0.x excuse for years. Call it the Peter Pan syndrome of open source.
For comparison, Elixir started in 2012, and got its 1.0 in 2014, two years later. Zig stable has been ‘a few years’ for literally a decade.
> My point is that at some point one needs to recognize their project is used for production stuff and make stability the focus, rather than hiding behind the 0.x excuse for years. Call it the Peter Pan syndrome of open source.
We have a roadmap to 1.0.0 -- it's literally right there in the release notes -- and we're going to execute on that and then tag it. Ignoring that (and SemVer) and declaring that we should actually stabilize right now is a bit unreasonable.
> For comparison, Elixir started in 2012, and got its 1.0 in 2014, two years later. Zig stable has been ‘a few years’ for literally a decade.
This is a wild comparison to me, and I say this as someone who actually used Elixir for a time fairly early in its development (and still like it!). Zig has a vastly larger and more difficult problem space to deal with than Elixir.
ubavic · · focus · HN ↗
It’s not for everyone yet. It’s still unstable, and its ecosystem is small. However, both are improving.
vconnor · · focus · HN ↗
To be fair, I've heard this for years now, yet the hype keeps mounting. I wasted half an hour this morning debugging a broken Zig project, all because I used a release a few months too new that removed some options used in build.zig
Releasing stable software and caring about backward compatibility is a skill many open-source maintainers don't ever want to engage with. It's so easy saying "our code is not stable, if it breaks good luck to you", but at some point it starts to smell like fear of commitment to running a serious project that people depend on.
rererereferred · · focus · HN ↗
vconnor · · focus · HN ↗
For comparison, Elixir started in 2012, and got its 1.0 in 2014, two years later. Zig stable has been ‘a few years’ for literally a decade.
alexrp · · focus · HN ↗
We have a roadmap to 1.0.0 -- it's literally right there in the release notes -- and we're going to execute on that and then tag it. Ignoring that (and SemVer) and declaring that we should actually stabilize right now is a bit unreasonable.
> For comparison, Elixir started in 2012, and got its 1.0 in 2014, two years later. Zig stable has been ‘a few years’ for literally a decade.
This is a wild comparison to me, and I say this as someone who actually used Elixir for a time fairly early in its development (and still like it!). Zig has a vastly larger and more difficult problem space to deal with than Elixir.