Hacker News Reader

Rust is certainly made simpler by not sweating ABI stability. But the main advantage of dynamic linking is to enable yesterday's app to run on tomorrow's OS (and vice-versa). It's why your apps keep working when you update your phone.

Without a dynamic linking story, Rust is just not viable for writing UIKit, Android's frameworks, etc. Which is OK, it's a reasonable choice, but it limits Rust's scope.

View on HN

Zig is in a really good position here. Its featureset sticks closer to C, and being able to automatically generate C headers from Zig code and automatically consume C headers from Zig code is really convenient.

Not until it sorts out its use-after-free story.

Does Zig really solve this problem? For example, if I add a field to a Zig struct, can existing code still use the struct without needing to be recompiled?

No, but what I'm saying is, it makes dynamic linking a lot easier in general than Rust does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com