Zig 0.11
ziglang.org
ziglang.org
That's quite impressive. For comparison, Python had 2 full time paid devs in 2019 (not sure about now).
The most the PSF could do is “bolt on” a developer to solve packaging in yet another non embraced and supported way.
GVR for example works for Microsoft and has worked at Dropbox and other places, but spends much of his time on Python. So he isn't listed as an employee of the foundation, but at times is full time.
If a company donates employee time they have more influence on the project than donating cash to pay for development.
The fact that Zig had the cash donation to do it this way is brilliant, and probably a better model.
The Zig team are doing great work and they care about the contributor experience.
I also heard someone say "Zig is to C what Rust is to C++". Which I interpret as, it's another maximum-performance modern language, but smaller than Rust; "smaller" meaning that it has less safety and also abstraction (no encapsulation [1]), but less requirements and complexity.
Particularly with games, many devs want to build a working prototype really fast and then iterate fast. They don't want to deal with the borrow checker especially if their code has a lot of complex lifetime rules (and the borrow checker is a real issue; it caused evanw to switch esbuild to Go [1]). In small scripts with niche uses, safety and architecture are a waste of effort, the script just has to be done and work (and the latter is only partly necessary, because the script may not even be fed enough inputs to cover edge cases). Plus, there are plenty of projects where custom allocation is especially important, and having every type support custom allocation is a big help vs. having to rewrite every type yourself or use `no_std` variants.
[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/2974
[2] https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/issues/189#issuecomment-647...
A lock-free ConcurrentHashMap, for example, is by no means a straightforward data structure in a non-GC language. Even if you somehow dodge Rust's pedantry, you still have to figure out who owns what, who pays for what and when they pay for it--and there are multiple valid choices!
Non-GC allocation/deallocation in concurrent data structures probably still qualifies as a solid CS problem.
(And, before you point me to your favorite crate for ConcurrentHashMap, please check it's guarantees when one process needs to iterate across keys while another process simultaneously is inserting/deleting elements. You will be shocked at how many of them need to pull a lock--so much for lock-free.)
I think the obnoxious part in Rust is doing intrusive and shared mutability parts of data structures. Having to go between NonNulls, Options, Pin, and Cell/UnsafeCell is not a pleasant experience.
This is an oxymoron :) The strictness and borrow checker are part of the power and modernity of Rust.
But even apart from that, Rust has automatic value-based destructors (destructor follows the value as it's moved across scopes and is only called in the final scope), whereas Zig only has scope-based destructors (defer) and you need to remember to write them and ensure they're called exactly once per value. Rust has properly composable Option/Result monads, whereas Zig has special-cased ! and ? which don't compose (no Option of Option or Result of Result) but do benefit from nice built-in syntax due to their special-cased-ness. Rust has typed errors whereas Zig only has integers, though again that allows Zig to have much simpler syntax for defining arbitary error sets which would require defining a combinatorial explosion of enums in Rust.
Of course from Zig's point-of-view these are features, not deficiences, which is completely understandable given what kind of language it wants to be. And the other advantages you listed like comptime (Rust's const-eval is very constrained and has been WIP for ages) and custom allocator support from day 1 (the way Rust is bolting it on will make most existing code unusable with custom allocators, including parts of Rust's own standard library) are indeed good advantages. Zig also has very nice syntax unification - generic types are type constructor functions fn(type) -> type, modules are structs, etc.
I hope that one day we'll have a language that combines the best of Rust's strictness and Zig's comptime and syntax.
Having strong backwards compatibility does that to the language, alternative is arguably worse (see Python 2 vs 3).
---
Problem is lots of implementation things are vying for inclusion. And many thing people want aren't safe or block/are blocked by possible future changes.
For example default/named arguments were blocked by ambiguity in parsing when it comes to type ascription iirc. And not having default arguments makes adding allocator quite more cumbersome.
Plus Rust maintainers are seeing some common patterns and are trying to abstract over them - like keyword generics/ effect system. If they don't hit right abstraction now, things will be much more harder later. If they over abstract, its extremly hard to remove it.
---
Slowness of stabilizing never type (!) and specializations has to do with the issues they cause mainly unsoundness and orphan rules issues, iirc I haven't checked them in a while.
But otherwise yeah, Unstable book keeps growing and growing: https://doc.rust-lang.org/unstable-book/index.html
?!!??u32 is a perfectly cromulent type in Zig.
const std = @import("std");
fn some(x: anytype) ?@TypeOf(x) {
return x;
}
fn print_my_guy(maybe_maybe_x: ??u32) void {
if(maybe_maybe_x) |maybe_x| {
if (maybe_x) |x| {
std.debug.print("that's Some(Some({d})) {any}\n", .{x, maybe_maybe_x});
} else {
std.debug.print("that's Some(None) {any}\n", .{maybe_maybe_x});
}
} else {
std.debug.print("that's None {any}\n", .{maybe_maybe_x});
}
}
pub fn main() void {
const a: ??u32 = 5;
const b: ??u32 = null;
const c: ??u32 = some(@as(?u32, null));
print_my_guy(a);
print_my_guy(b);
print_my_guy(c);
} const std = @import("std") ;
const print = std.debug.print ;
pub fn main() void {
const simple_none : ?u8 = null ;
const double_optional_none : ??u8 = null ;
const double_optional_some_none : ??u8 = simple_none ;
print("none equals some none: {}", .{ double_optional_none == double_optional_some_none });
// prints none equals some none: false
}- very solid build system (the build config file(s) are written in zig so you dont have to learn another language for the build system (looking at you, makefile)) that has crosscompilation builtin (with one compiler flag)
- language level errors, like, errors as first class citizens. forces you to handle errors, but without much mental or syntactic overhead (you can re-throw them with `try myfunction()`), also results in a unified interface
- no implicit conversions
- looks high-level (modern sytnax that is easy(ish) to parse) but as low level (or lower) than C, no abstractions that hide details you need to know about when programming (similar to C)
- C interop, so you can just add zig source files to a C project and compile it all with the zig toolchain. Zig can also parse c headers and source files and convert them, so you can include c headers and just start calling functions from there. For example, using SDL is as simple as pointing the toolchain to the SDL headers and .so file, and the sdl headers will be translated to zig on the fly so you can start with SDL.SDL_CreateWindow right away.
Not to mention memory leak detection, crazy fast compilation times, slices and a built in C compiler so your code can seamlessly integrate with an existing C code base (seriously no wrapper needed).
Zig is really really awesome. The only thing holding it back from mass adoption right now is that it's not finished yet, and that shows in the minimal documentation. That said, if you're comfortable tinkering, it's completely capable of production uses (and is already used in production in various companies).
This is just not true and it's the reason #1 I am not using Zig. To give you some numbers, ZLS is a reasonably sized project (around 62k LOC of Zig) and on my very beefy machine it takes 14 seconds to build in debug mode and 78 seconds to build in release mode.
Because of the "single compilation unit" approach that Zig uses this means you are paying for that very same time regardless of where you modify your program.. so basically clean rebuild time is equal to simple modification time.
As a comparison my >100k LOC game in Rust takes less than 10s to build in release mode for modifications that happen not too far down the crate hierarchy.
So yeah, be for whatever reason you want (LLVM, no incremental builds and so on) as for today Zig is not even close to having "crazy fast compilation times".
Here people can read more: https://kristoff.it/blog/zig-new-relationship-llvm/
Since that post was written we completed the transition to self-hosted and the x86_64 backend is getting close to passing all behavior tests.
Real enums, modules, etc.
A compile-time execution system (effectively replaces the preprocessor/macro system).
Syntax that is easier to `grep -r` for without complex regex.
Tests are a first-class citizen.
Safer type system.
Really, just a bunch of things that should've been added to C 20 years ago.
> that there is only one C
IMHO one of C's strong points is the ubiquity of non-standard compiler extensions, C with Clang extensions is much more "powerful" than standard C, personally I see C as a collection of closely related languages with a common standardized core, and you can basically pick and choose how portabel (between compilers) you want to be versus using compiler-specific extensions for low level optimization work (and in a twisted way, Zig is also a very remote member of that language family because it integrates so well with C).
> "one notch up from assembly"
C is actually a high-level language, it's only low-level when compared to other high-level languages, but much closer to those than to assembly. Arguably Zig is in some places even lower-level than C because it's stricter where C has more "wiggle room" (for instance when it comes to implicit type conversions where Zig is extremely strict).
> being available on any platform, existing or future, any architecture, suitable for any bare metal use case
Zig has a pretty good shot at that requirement, it has a good bootstrapping story, and for the worst case it has (or will have) a C and LLVM (bitcode) backend.
For me personnally, Zig will most likely never completely replace C, but instead will augment it. I expect that most of my projects will be a mix of C, C++, ObjC and Zig (and Zig makes it easy to integrate all those languages into a single project).
However they could at least support some kind of enumerations, one of the things they definitly aren't a better C.
In my opinion, Zig seems likely to grow the necessary bits to be good at embedded while Rust is unlikely to figure out how to shrug off the clanky bits that make it a poor fit for embedded devices.
However, I'm a personal believer that the future is polyglot. We're just at the beginning of shrugging off the C ABI that has been preventing useful interoperability for decades.
Once that happens, I can use Rust for the parts that Rust is good for and Zig for the parts that Zig is good for.
What do you see as "clanky bits that make it a poor fit" for such a broad range of stuff as "embedded devices" ?
Embedded goes at least as far as from "It's actually just a Linux box" which is obviously well suited to Rust, to devices too small to justify any "high level language" where even C doesn't really fit comfortably. Rust specifically has no ambitions for hardware too small to need 16-bit addresses, but much of that range seems very do-able to me.
There are lots of systems where memory changes hands. Game programming, for example. You allocate a big chunk of memory, you put some stuff in it, you hand it off to the graphics card, and some amount of time later the graphics card hands it back to you.
Rust gets VERY cranky about this. You wind up writing a lot of unsafe code that is very difficult to make jibe with the expectations of the Rust compiler. It's, in fact, MUCH harder than writing straight C.
Example clanky bit: slab allocation
You often don't really care about deallocation of objects in slabs in video games because everything gets wiped on every frame. You'd rather just keep pushing forward since you know the whole block gets wiped 16 milliseconds from now. Avoiding drop semantics takes (generaly unsafe) code and work.
Rust is really good when it is control of everything. I love Rust for communication stacks (USB, CANBUS, etc.). Bytes in/state in to bytes out/state out is right in its wheelhouse. Apparently Google agrees--their new Bluetooth stack (Gabeldorsche) is written in Rust. When Rust has this kind of clearly delineated interface, it's really wonderful.
However, Rust does not play well with others as my examples point out. To be fair, neither do many other languages (Hell, C++ doesn't play well with itself). However, that's going to be a disadvantage going forward as the future is polyglot.
2. You can do type introspection (and switching) during compile-time, and it's not just some stupid TokenStream transformer, you really have type information available, you can do if/else on the presence of methods, etc.
3. There are no generics, but your functions can accept anytype, which is still type-safe. See https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/9c05810be60756e07bd7fee0... and note the return type is "computed" from the type of the input.
4. Types are first-class values (during comptime), so any function can take or return a new type, this is how you get generic types, without (syntax/checking) support for generics.
5. You can easily call anything which does not allocate in these comptime blocks.
6. There's @compileError which you can use for custom type assertions -> therefore, you have programmable type-system.
7. It's super-easy to call C from Zig.
8. This is subjective: You don't feel bad about using pointers. Linked data structures are fine.
The typical urban myth that never comes with profiler proofs.
https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/c-vs-rust
I understand that anytime someone brings benchmarks out, the next response points out that benchmarks are not real world use cases. Nonetheless, they are data points, and your claims are against the commonly accepted view of C being roughly as fast as C++ and Rust. If you have absolutely no data to back it up, you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.
Zig does not do any work because it does not have smart pointers and it does not try to be safe. It tries to be explicit and predictable, the rest is my job.
BTW: This is very real, I've been profiling this and I couldn't believe my eyes. And even if they fixed it already there would be many similar footguns. You can't write performant software if you can't tell what work will be done.
You can decide to not use frequent heap allocations in Rust or C++ just as you can in Zig (it means not using large areas of the C++ or Rust standard libraries, while Zig definitely has the better approach when it comes to allocations in the standard library, but these are stdlib features, not language features).
So in a language which actively makes your life miserable in the name of safety, you will likely just use Vec<T> because it's easy. Hence, back to the previous point - Vec<T> is slow -> your code is slow and it's not even obvious why because everybody does that so it looks like you're doing it right.
It is 100% possible to use such style in Rust/C++ (and then the performance will be same or maybe even in favor of rust, it might be the case) but people usually do not do that.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
For example in this case Zig won big time over what C/C++/Rust people submitted: https://youtu.be/pSvSXBorw4A?t=1075
Zig is in the same ballpark as the ones mentioned above, so flohofwoe is right. But nevertheless I do think that cztomsik's point also still stands: how hard it is to make something fast will end up impacting the performance characteristics of the average program and library out there, and Zig does make it easier to write performant code than some other languages.
Which is basically what happened here: https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/unsafe-rust-vs-zig/
In truth the same applies to correctness, which is also a point that the blog post above touches upon.
> For example in this case Zig won big time over what C/C++/Rust people submitted: https://youtu.be/pSvSXBorw4A?t=1075
That was a faulty benchmark with a simple unnatural footgun that the Rust people overlooked. I don't think it supports your claim that benchmarks typically boil down to who is it that gets nerdsniped into them. Sure, it can happen, it happened at least once, but in general?
But apart from that the performance should be pretty much identical, after all it's LLVM that does the heavy lifting.
And was you point out, at the end of the day it is the same LLVM IR.
Or: the "optimization wall" in those languages is the same, only the effort to reach that wall might be slightly different (and this is actually where Zig and its stdlib might be better, it's more straightforward to reach the optimization wall because the Zig design philosophy prefers explicitness over magic)
It's very memory efficient, everything compiles of the box to WebAssembly (freestanding or wasi), the resulting code is compact and fast, and it can take advantage of the latest WebAssembly extensions (threads, SIMD, ...) without any code changes. If you are using a webassembly-powered cloud service and not using Zig to write your functions, you are wasting money. Seriously.
Unsurprisingly, this is the most popular language to write games running on WebAssembly: https://wasm4.org/blog/jam-2-results/
Beyond the language, Zig is also a toolchain to compile C code to WebAssembly. When targeting WASI, it will seamlessly optimize the C library for size, performance or runtime features. I used it to port OpenSSL, BoringSSL and ffmpeg to WebAssembly. Works well.
Also, Zig can generate WebAssembly libraries that can then be included in other languages that support WebAssembly. Most of my Rust crates for WebAssembly are now actually written in Zig.
It's also supported by Extism, so can be used to easily write safe plugins for applications written in other languages.
Are the memory safety guarantees that Rust offers over Zig not as important or critical when targeting WASM?
I've been interested in checking out Zig for a while now.
I’m not really convinced because in Andrew’s livestreams he’s actively uncovered significant stdlib bugs that he is aware of and tables for later.
Hopefully those will all be gone by 1.0, but I doubt it. For now, I cannot consider it a viable alternative to anything for production software. I do hope it will be some day, because it’s a nice language, even if it has a few syntactic warts :)
that said... I feel safer choosing C89 or C99 for certain things due to its extremely wide availability and longevity.
It’s great for it to have competitors, but C and C++ are more like standards and less like one tool with a handful of people working on it.
(although I think we still managed to write up all of the most important bits)
Is there are chart or a "are we xxxx yet" page one can reference?
It's nowhere near usable yet, but Zig has been a joy to work with for over a year, and I can definitely see myself using it for a big piece of software.
Looks like I'll be porting to 0.11.1 as soon as the documentation is in place... I hope they slow down soon, already feels complete. The WASM support is amazing, much smaller outputs than the other options I tried (Java & Go). Great work team!
- A pixel art editor https://github.com/fabioarnold/MiniPixel
- A Mega Man clone https://github.com/fabioarnold/zeroman
- Zig Gorillas https://github.com/fabioarnold/zig-gorillas
And most recently I had the opportunity to build a visualization for TigerBeetle's database simulator: https://sim.tigerbeetle.com
Before I was using C++ and Zig has been an improvement in every way.
A number of my libraries are used for https://www.aolium.com/ which I decided to write for myself.
I try to write a bit every day with the benefit that I can "waste" time digging into things or exploring likely-to-fail paths.
Personally I do not see the point of building an entirely new language and ecosystem that does not fully address this issue.
What I'm trying to say: There are use cases where areas of safety are required other than memory safety.
There are plenty of 'use cases' where Rust's guarantees (some vague but unenforceable promises around memory) are not worth the cost of using Rust (a very high cost). This is doubly true if you want to, say, not use any third-party libraries. If you use third-party libraries, you get essentially zero guarantees. And if you don't, you have to reinvent the world - and writing new data structures in Rust is a series of research projects, whereas doing so in C is trivial.
There are many situations where guaranteed 'memory safety' (a Rust propaganda term for 'having the guarantees we can provide but not the ones we can't provide') is not very important.
Operating system bootstraps?
DMA management/volatile driver access?
Doubly linked lists?
For what it is worth, Ada/SPARK has a strong presence in safety-critical domains like aerospace and medical devices, while Rust is gaining popularity in system programming and web development. ^^ I'm surprised that it is not as widespread. That, or lots of misconceptions.
"The National Security Agency (NSA) has recommended only using 'memory safe' languages, like C#, Go, Java, Ruby, Rust, and Swift, in order to avoid exploitable memory-based vulnerabilities."
"Logical Foundations for the Future of Safe Systems Programming"
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/683289
As for US,
https://media.defense.gov/2022/Nov/10/2003112742/-1/-1/0/CSI...
"NSA advises organizations to consider making a strategic shift from programming languages that provide little or no inherent memory protection, such as C/C++, to a memory safe language when possible. Some examples of memory safe languages are C#, Go, Java, Ruby™, and Swift®. Memory safe languages provide differing degrees of memory usage protections, so available code hardening defenses, such as compiler options, tool analysis, and operating system configurations, should be used for their protections as well. By using memory safe languages and available code hardening defenses, many memory vulnerabilities can be prevented, mitigated, or made very difficult for cyber actors to exploit."
Memory safety comes with a cost. Either you pay for a GC runtime (Java) or for reference counting (Swift) or by not being able to express a correct program (Rust).
There are plenty of use cases where none of these tradeoffs are feasible.
To add, Zig comes with its own story around memory safety. Not at the static type system level and it’s not as comprehensive as other languages.
Perhaps as an escape hatch (unsafe Rust) or a compiler target, but ideally not as a "general purpose language" as Zig is marketed as.
The difference is, you can use unsafe blocks/fns in Rust, in which case it becomes equivalent to C expressiveness-wise; but you can also do the opposite and forbid(unsafe_code) altogether.
"The use is necessary" = absolutely not. Lots (most) of projects wouldn't ever need to dip into unsafe code. And then there's another category where authors think they do because "that's how they would do it in C++", but in reality they don't.
No, you can't. The standard library contains 'unsafe', all over the place. Even if you discount that, large swathes of the library 'ecosystem' contain 'unsafe' and those that don't? They depend on libraries that do.
>"The use is necessary" = absolutely not.
Relying on some unsafe code that someone else has written is still using unsafe. The code in your dependencies is code that you use, that you depend on, and that affects you. It is meaningless to say you 'don't use unsafe code' if your code is just plumbing together a bunch of libraries that contain 'unsafe' code.
>And then there's another category where authors think they do because "that's how they would do it in C++", but in reality they don't.
This common sentiment from Rust developers is, just like all their other claims, totally unfounded. 'Oh you don't really need unsafe'. Then you explain why actually, yes, you do need unsafe and you're told that you're describing a 'special case'. Well guess what, every project is a special case in some respect. Every nontrivial project is going to have something that requires unsafe code, whether it's interfacing with hardware or using a system call that hasn't been wrapped or using a third party library or implementing a complex data structure or one of many many other various things that require 'unsafe'.
And even if you don't use 'unsafe' anywhere in your code and you somehow magically know that all of your dependencies are perfectly written and all the soundness bugs in the Rust compiler are fixed (at which point you might well ask: if you can assume all your Rust dependencies are perfect, why can't you assume all your C dependencies are perfect? And also, how can you be confident in any 'unsafe' code being safe if the rules for what is 'safe' to do in unsafe aren't even written down anywhere?), then what do you get? Almost nothing. 'Memory safety' is a very narrow category. As I said above, it means 'things Rust protects against'. It wasn't a term that was popularly used before Rust became known in the way Rust means it. Even to most Rust developers and contributors, right up until release it was widely assumed that it included leak freedom. And then a couple of weeks before release that was quietly dropped and memory-holed when it was shown that you could introduce memory leaks trivially. Large amounts of supposedly 'safe' unsafe code had to be rewritten and redesigned.
Rust just doesn't give you any the guarantees that Rust evangelists love to claim. Even in memory safety. In fact, almost every language out there is MORE safe than Rust, in the sense in which Rust claims to be memory-safe! The only ones that aren't are those without garbage collection.
You're not limited by anything there, period.
We’re really talking about safety on a continuum, not as a binary switch. Zig has some strong safety features, and some gaps. Well, one notable big gap, UAF. (Perhaps they’ll figure out a way to plug thisin the future? Perhaps by 1.0?)
Actually, safety has multiple axes as well.
> Personally I do not see the point of building an entirely new language and ecosystem that does not fully address this issue
The more safe languages make significant tradeoffs to achieve their level of safety. The promise of zig (I don’t know if it will ultimately achieve this, but it’s plausible, IMO), is “a better C”, including much more safety. For one thing, it has a great C interop/incremental adoption story, which increases the chance it will actually be used to improve existing codebases. The “RIIR” meme is a joke because, of course, there is no feasible way to do so for so many of the useful and widely used vulnerable codebases.
I am somewhat surprised this is being mentioned. And the whole thread is without the usual people complaining it about unsafe.
Interesting changes happening on HN.
Number of memory bugs in several fairly huge projects: 0
Zig is way more maintainable, leads to less code which translates to fewer bugs
How about that?
I realize Zig is just 0.11, but wondering what resources people relied on to pick it up?
If it's layer upon layer of unscrutable abstractions, then you know there's a high chance your codebase will end up looking the same after a few years.
Do you, by chance, know the reasoning behind this step?
Not supporting proprietary OSes is a bummer. Especially if it is marked as deprecated since it is unlikely to change. People choosing Zig to anything choose their users to throw away their devices.
.. the number of hardware and software just keeps growing and growing endlessly, and the number of their combinations grows even faster. We probably need some more virtual machines as targets to cover them all.
So it’s not really zig deprecating 32-bit macos’s, but Apple, and there’s not a lot zig can do about that.
Apple is asking you to throw away your devices, not Zig. Getting proper CI coverage for supported versions of the OS is already pretty expensive and doing the same for unsupported systems is entirely unfeasible at this moment.
Don't buy Apple if you don't want to throw away functioning hardware.
Having 'we support proprietary systems until their makers support it' as a hard rule is unnecessary and harsh. It is a simple rule, but I don't think it is good. Why not choose the supported systems on individual merits, e.g. on usage statistics? I think for example the Linux kernel does that.
edit: I just continued the previous thought. If your reply means that you are open or likely to target deprecated systems in the future, that's much better!
It would be nice to eventually provide support older systems but first we need to get to a point where doing so doesn't mean taking away resources from more worthy endeavors.