zlacker

> I'll admit I'm somewhat biased against Bun?

Why? Genuine question, sorry if it was said/implied in your original message and I missed it.

>>gr4vit+(OP)
Good question, hard to say, but I think it's mainly because of Zig. At its core Zig is marketed as a competitor to C, not C++/Rust/etc, which makes me think it's harder to write working code that won't leak or crash than in other languages. Zig embraces manual memory management as well.

>>Tiberi+41
Rust is more of a competitor to C++ than C. Manual memory management is sometimes really helpful and necessary. Zig has a lot of safety features.

>>gr4vit+(OP)
I mean, they said they looked at the source code and thought it was gross, so there’s a justification for their concern, at least.

>>Tiberi+41
> At its core Zig is marketed as a competitor to C, not C++/Rust/etc

What gives you this impression?

I directly created Zig to replace C++. I used C++ before I wrote Zig. I wrote Zig originally in C++. I recently ported Chromaprint from C++ to Zig, with nice performance results. I constantly talk about how batching is superior to RAII.

Everyone loves to parrot this "Zig is to C as Rust is to C++" nonsense. It's some kind of mind virus that spreads despite any factual basis.

I don't mean to disparage you in particular, this is like the 1000th time I've seen this.

>>AndyKe+Pb1
I got to love that the author of the thing can show up and say “Why?! I never said any of that!”

A lot of stuff related to older languages is lost in the sands of time, but the same thing isn’t true for current ones.

>>AndyKe+Pb1
You have pretty explicitly framed Zig as a C replacement yourself, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g

More broadly, I think the observation tends to get repeated because C and Zig share a certain elegance and simplicity (even if C's elegance has dated). C++ is many things, but it's hardly elegant or simple.

I don't think anyone denies that Zig can be a C++ replacement, but that's hardly unusual, so can many other languages (Rust, Swift, etc). What's noteworthy here is that Zig is almost unique in having the potential to be a genuine C replacement. To its (and your) great credit, I might add.

>> At its core Zig is marketed as a competitor to C, not C++/Rust/etc, which makes me think it's harder to write working code that won't leak or crash than in other languages. Zig embraces manual memory management as well.

@GP: This is not a great take. All four languages are oriented around manual memory management. C++ inherits all of the footguns of C, whereas Zig and Rust try to sand off the rough edges.

Manual memory management is and will always remain necessary. The only reason someone writing JS scripts don't need to worry about managing their memory is because someone has already done that work for them.

>>fn-mot+YO
That's fair, but the word 'biased' felt unusual to describe how they perceive the runtime.

>>AndyKe+Pb1
Well if anything take as a compliment. As a C, C++ (and some Rust) who lately is enjoying Zig, I think Zig is the only programming language positioned to convince system programming die hard C programmers to use another programming language with simplicity and power backed in.

But completely agree. Its a perfect replacement for C++ and I would say the natural spiritual successor of C.

I gave up using Rust for new projects after seeing the limitations for the kind of software I like to write and have been using Zig instead as it gives me the freedom I need without all the over-complication that languages like C++ and Rust bring to the table.

I think people should first experiment see for themselves and only then comment as I see a lot of misinformation and beliefs more based on marketing than reality.

Thank you very much for your wonderful work!