Hacker News Reader

Comment by sam0x17 | Hacker News Reader

If anything, Zig will have much fewer restrictions (no borrow checker) than Rust when it comes to web dev, once Zig matures to the point where there is a good standard HTTP client and server implementation and a package manager.

I'm a fan of Rust for things like a missile control system or a stock exchange, but not, say, writing a CRM. I'd gladly write a CRM in Zig however, given the proper library support and tooling. Why? productivity. In my experience it just takes 2-3x longer to get the same thing done in Rust vs. something like Zig/Crystal/Go and certainly vs. Ruby/Python/etc. For extremely mission critical code, this is fine, but for most startups I would argue it probably isn't appropriate.

Definitely staying tuned as Zig develops.

View on HN

One experience i can share with Zig and webdev is this:

I was writing a emulator (and later: a compiler) in Zig which was originally written for PC. But i got the idea that hosting this stuff on the web page would be cool, so i learned how to do Wasm. The result was for both project a glue file with ~150 LOC Zig and ~150 JS and both compiler and emulator ran in the browser, and porting both projects took less than an afternoon of time.

Very cool. In my case, I have my eye on Zig as the target language for some web framework ideas I've had for a while, and I'm just waiting for some library maturity at this point before I get started.

While I like what Rust is trying to achieve, I would never use something that is not formally proven. There are many, many other static analysis tools in the C and Ada world that can achieve exactly the same thing. They imply less risk, they are way more mature (~40 yo) and have bigger communities around them.

Zig is a better C and C++. It should be used accordingly. It will do well in game servers, simulation servers and real-time systems that don't require hard safety constraints. Bonus points for Zig, it is a simple language and because of its nature it will be easy to build tooling around it to prove properties.

Agreed that Rust has a bit of an odd fit -- it is in many ways a bit too onerous for day-to-day things like CRMs and web dev, but for the real scenarios where you want formal verification, you can of course also use actual formal methods and get a much higher degree of certainty perhaps. It is well suited for OS and driver dev though, which is arguably the target use case.

"It is well suited for OS and driver dev though"

Rust is brilliant, but for drivers, I would go for a language with OOM safety and strict static allocation, especially for embedded environments.

> that can achieve exactly the same thing

That's a bold claim. What's the C formal validator which automatically handles both memory management and concurrency in source of any size within seconds/minutes? (Without making the source its own dialect rather than C)

True, I'm familiar with ones in Java but not in C/C++. Having written a leak / double free detector for C, I have to say, you can only do so much statically and that wouldn't give me peace of mind exactly.

Frama-C and Microsoft's Security Description Language.

I don't think we can call it "automatic handling", you just play by the borrow checker's rules. Automatic are the garbage collectors but not Rust's model.

Anyway, you can verify the critical part of your C/Ada program by using: Why3 http://why3.lri.fr/ Frama-C http://frama-c.com/ (which is also extensible) SPARK https://www.adacore.com/about-spark

One company that I've worked for used generators, they were specifying the model with a DSL and they generated the code based on that. Can't give more information about that but there are others doing the same (SpaceX and NASA). Rust is very good for people that don't have the resources and money to throw at or are working in an industry where they don't need a certification, for example I have friends at Amazon in Romania that build Firecracker, a virtual machine that is supposed to improve the safety story on AWS Lambda.

And as an answer for your second question, at what cost? Also we don't know if Rust gets the scaling right. The compiler is already slow for the size of projects we already have.

There's a bit of disjoint between what those tools do and they what Rust does. Rust provides something different - you write the source in standard code and get a sound app. Verifiers can't do that with C. You essentially either write a parallel list of annotations or generate the app from another language. It's a valid approach, but that's why I objected to "exactly the same thing".

Rust's borrow checking algorithm has been formally proven for a subset of the full language. Although this is one of those places where intuition is adequate to show the value, i.e. of enforcing exclusive mutability. After all, the intuition and implementation came before the proof (as is often the case).

There is work to get Rust qualified for safety critical domains [1]. Someone else pointed out that parts of the borrow checker have been formally proven already. Still a long road ahead, but I'm glad people are looking at it.

https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/sealed-rust-the-pitch/

Where does the extra productivity in Zig come from in your experience? I haven't worked with it, but my understanding is that memory management is manual and explicit, which tends to come with some cognitive overhead. If Zig has a good solution for this I would be curious how it achieves it.

Defer and errdefer help make the memory handling dead easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com