My Software North Star

flooow 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine it's a difficult time to be a Zig developer.

In the near term, Bun choosing to switch from Zig to Rust specifically to fix all the memory errors seems to have done the Zig community some psychological damage.

But more significantly, in the medium term it looks likely that AI coding is going to overtake the industry before Zig gets properly established. And it is going to be very hard to justify choosing Zig for your sloppy-but-functional AI-written code - why open yourself up to memory unsafety on top of everything else? Further, the Zig community appears to value a hand-crafted, 'artisanal' approach to software development, which is the very antithesis of vibecoding.

I have no particular interest in Zig as a language but definitely feel some empathy here. The industry is changing in ways that many of us are struggling to process.

	▲	dnautics a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> before Zig gets properly established. zig is reasonably established. the llms write pretty good zig. > And it is going to be very hard to justify choosing Zig for your sloppy-but-functional AI-written code why? because one project that was shipping fast made a dog's breakfast of it? > why open yourself up to memory unsafety on top of everything else? this can be addressed. for example: https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

▲

randypewick 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Damn this person's obviously is so bitter towards Rust... I wonder why he's so obsessed with it?

I mean, if they really care about software correctness, I wonder why take a very discutibile position and say that "safety doesn't matter if you don't use the correct process". Yeah, I mean, having some guardrails is better than none, right? If they really cared about correctness, they would really strive to put all the possible guardrails in place, wouldn't they? Maybe they are bitter because their fav language is not as popular as the other?

But there are so many languages, I wonder why picking on Rust specifically.

▲

raincole 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don't get it. Are we reading the same article? This article is so generic that it reads like vacuous truth to me. But I don't see their bitterness towards Rust (or anything, really. It's just vacuous.) from it. Is this person a famous anti-rust'er or something?

	▲	bigyabai a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> It doesn’t matter that the language you use is memory-safe > nobody can trick me into mistaking lesser stars for my true destination The author seems to be in some level of denial around compile-time safety checks. They're right that runtime safety errors are an issue, but it feels wrong to discount compile time checkers when it can save a lot of yak shaving.

▲

mobelkh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the piece didn't really seem very targeted at Rust as much as it's targeted at projects claiming to be secure just because they're written in Rust

▲

worik an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Damn this person's obviously is so bitter towards Rust

What makes you think that?

> I wonder why picking on Rust specifically.

I did not see that. What did I miss?

▲

ares623 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

from his about page: "I'm VP of Community at the Zig Software Foundation"

EDIT: doesn't really answer your question. Just reminds me of a good ol' flamewar.