Please don't spread misinformation. Zig does not have implicit null.
Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them.
Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them.
How is it ambiguous? Dependent type systems/algorithms can be weaker than desired, but there's no way you can say Zig has dependent types.
For example you can do:
const std = @import("std");
fn Int(comptime value: i32) type {
return struct {
pub fn value() i32 {
return value;
}
};
}
pub fn main() anyerror!void {
const int3 = Int(3);
const int4 = Int(4);
std.debug.warn("Types: {} {}\n", @typeName(int3), @typeName(int4));
std.debug.warn("Sum: {}\n", int3.value() + int4.value());
}
Types: Int(3) Int(4)
Sum: 7
[2] https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2
[1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Struc...
Although there are differing ways to define dependent types, and they come in different varieties (dependent functions, dependent pairs/structs, very dependent types, dependent intersections, inductive types), they are all founded on a foundation of type theory. I guess if you want me to clarify, it is 'dependent types based on a well understood foundation from type theory'.
---
Edit: seems like Zig does have optional types! That is a good thing! https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Optionals