Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I mean if we're going to nitpick:

>>> its lack of safety checks

>> Saying Zig lacks safety checks is unfortunate,

> I never said Zig has no safety features.

You did. Or, alternatively, if you don't equate "checks" with "features", then I never said you said that so what are you complaining about?

> If it would have Rusts guarantees (as in: The same) it would be more complex.

Which is true (if tautological), and is basically what the GP said:

> Zig's manual memory management might actually be more ergonomic for a DOM implementation specifically because you can model the graph relationships more directly without fighting the compiler, provided you have a robust strategy for the arena allocation

Both you and the GP agree that Rust is more complex.

You objected to this with:

> It's unfortunate that "writing safe code" is constantly being phrased in this way.

Upon which I commented that Zig does have safety features, even if they're not covering you as well as Rust's ones. Which is, again, inline with "provided you have a robust strategy for the arena allocation."

Now, if you think I'm going overboard with this, I agree with you -- and this is the exact feeling I have when I look at Rust :)





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: