It isn't my thing though. It's quite literally, by choice, their thing. They are the ones who decided that rewriting musl in zig was something they need to do and was such a priority. Only it's a serious regression.

But I mean, the six people in a trenchcoat comment is basically precisely what should give people pause. In my project I simply eliminated zig from the stack entirely because even if I worked around the problems, what comes next? What's the next showstopper that gets waved away as oh well six people in a trenchcoat...

Eh, whatever.

▲

nvme0n1p1 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's a 0.x project, let them cook. Building things takes time.

https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/std/#std.mem.findSe... didn't exist then, now it does.

And if i may quote from https://ziglang.org/download/0.17.0/release-notes.html:

> Zig has known bugs, miscompilations, and regressions.

> Even with Zig 0.17.x, working on a non-trivial project using Zig may require participating in the development process.

> When Zig reaches 1.0.0, Tier 1 support will gain a bug policy as an additional requirement.

If you're not willing to participate in the development process, then you should wait or use something else.

▲

simonask 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't that exactly what they're saying?

Some people (not its creators) talk about Zig as if it's anywhere near production ready. It's fine to be excited about it (there's a lot to be excited about), but we gotta be realistic.

▲

dnautics 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, the framing "give pause" is the sort of framing that people create FUD create

	▲	llm_nerd 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This submission is advocating Zig over C for system programming. I pointed out a pretty significant reason why maybe you should pause that decision for a bit, and the response have been much more significant reasons why you should be wary. Now it's "FUD", also it's a beta and you're a beta tester, and it's 0.x, and look they disclaim that you shouldn't trust it, and barely anyone works on it, and... By the advocates for the language, it should be noted. This is a bizarre thread. These very comments are precisely why it should give pause (which isn't remotely "FUD", and what an utterly asinine claim). Zig looks neat and it might get there, but this absurd apologism and goalpost moving is not convincing to adopt the language. Again, in a submission advocating using Zig for system programming.

▲

nvme0n1p1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Zig team: "Zig is 0.x and has known bugs"

llm_nerd: "I found a bug. This gives me pause about the whole zig project"

I don't see how the latter is a fair reaction given the former. Especially since they only recently started working on the libc port (although it had been talked about for much longer)

▲

diffxx 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They have been cooking for over ten years. It is more than fair to say at this point that they are not capable of shipping a stable, reliable, fast and efficient compiler. It is fundamentally flawed and I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process.

Zig hides behind its pre 1.0 status to justify poor decision making while simultaneously actively trying to attract attention through marketing. That attention translates to resources and influence that are undeserved on the technical merits.

	▲	alexrp 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It is fundamentally flawed and I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process. Always happy to learn.
	▲	nvme0n1p1 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I could easily write thousands of words explaining why from the architectural design to the development process. Alright then go for it, hotshot. We're waiting.

▲

forgotpwd16 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has been 0.x for 10y+. At this point won't be off if considered 0ver (https://0ver.org) and permanently beta.

▲

acedTrex 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	rixed 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How could we call that variety of ad hominem fallacy that does not even target the person but his name, or even pseudonym? Ad nominem?
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]