> No borrow checker. No lifetimes. No fighting the compiler for 20 minutes over a string.

I don’t like this attitude, both zig and rust have their strengths.

nurettin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Rust has bad ergonomics. You will see that "attitude" as long as coding exists, or lifetimes are fixed in a way to allow you to omit them in contexts which are not concurrent or are embarrassingly parallelizable.

▲

DeathArrow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would take Zig over Rust any time. It simply fits the way I think much much better.

And since 0.16/0.17 Zig introduced a very nice async/concurrency system that doesn't require function coloring. While async in Rust still feels strange and not well integrated.

▲

pmarreck 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "I don't like this attitude"

Cool, let me know when you have a rational counterargument then, some of us have gotten fed up with Rust (especially at scale) and are very much enjoying Zig (which has no magic, which turns out to be a huge advantage at scale)

	▲	ramon156 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"No borrow checker" id not a reason to switch to Zig, unless you have a reason that borrow checker is limiting you from developing, hence the "I don't like this attitude". Just give the reason, not the "solution" Not to mention we're nitpicking over something that an LLM wrote.
	▲	InsideOutSanta 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There doesn't really need to be a counterargument. If you like Zig, that's great. Zig is great, you are great. You go on using it.
	▲	adastra22 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Ok have fun. The rest of us are having no problems.