How's your experience with the constantly changing language? How're your update/rewrite cycles looking like? Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
I know Bun's using zig to a degree of success, was wondering how the rest were doing.
The language and stdlib changing hasn't been a major pain point in at least a year or two. There was some upgrade a couple of years ago that took us awhile to land (I think it might have been 0.12 -> 0.13 but I could be misremembering the exact version) but it's been smooth sailing for a long time now.
These days I'd put breaking releases in the "minor nuisance" category, and when people ask what I've liked and disliked about using Zig I rarely even remember to bring it up.
Also, I'm excited about trying out your language even moreso than Zig. :)
Example programs that you couldn't easily express in other languages?
This might be on purpose given the first words are "Work in progress" and "not ready for release", but linking as above does lose some value.
He wasn't pitching the language directly, but linking to the codebase as that was what was relevant to the comment he was replying to.
These larger zig projects will stick to a tagged release (which doesn't change), and upgrade to newly tagged releases, usually a few days or months after they come out. The upgrade itself takes like a week, depending on the amount of changes to be done. These projects also tend to not use other zig dependencies.
[0]: https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle/pulls?q=is%3Apr+a...
[1]: https://github.com/Syndica/sig/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Akpro...
Have you tried rust? how does it compared to zig?
* just asking
Rust is a modern C++/OCaml
So if you enjoy C++, Rust is for you. If you enjoy C and wish it was more verbose and more modern, try Zig.
If you enjoy C and wish it was less verbose and more modern, try Go.
Maybe I'll jump to Zig as a side-gig (ha, it rhymes), but I still can't motivate myself to play with Rust. I'm happy with C++ on that regard.
Maybe gccrs will change that, IDK, yet.
GC is a showstopper for my day job (hard realtime industrial machine control/robotics), but would also be unwanted for other use cases where worst case latency is important, such as realtime audio/video processing, games (where you don't want stutter, remember Minecraft in Java?), servers where tail latency matters a lot, etc.
Which is a very niche use case to begin with, isn't it? It doesn't really contradict what the parent comment stated about Go feeling like modern C (with a boehm gc included if you will). We're using it this way and it feels just fine. I'd be happy to see parts of our C codebase rewritten in Go, but since that code is security sensitive and has already been through a number of security reviews there's little motivation to do so.
My specific use case is yes, but there are a ton of microcontrollers running realtime tasks all around us: brakes in cars, washing machine controllers, PID loops to regulate fans in your computer, ...
Embedded systems in general are far more common than "normal" computers, and many of them have varying levels of realtime requirements. Don't believe me? Every classical computer or phone will contain multiple microcontrollers, such as an SSD controller, a fan controller, wifi module, cellular baseband processor, ethernet NIC, etc. Depending on the exact specs of your device of course. Each SOC, CPU or GPU will contain multiple hidden helper cores that effectively run as embedded systems (Intel ME, AMD PSP, thermal management, and more). Add to that all the appliances, cars, toys, IOT things, smartcards, etc all around us.
No, I don't think it is niche. Fewer people may work on these, but they run in far more places.
Some embedded use cases would be fine with a GC (MicroPython is also a thing after all). Some want deterministic deallocation. Some want no dynamic allocator at all. From what I have seen, far more products are in the latter two categories. While many hobby projects fall into the first two categories. That is of course a broad generalization, but there is some truth to it.
Many products want to avoid allocation entirely either because of the realtime properties, or because they are cost sensitive and it is worth spending a little bit extra dev effort to be able to save an Euro or two and use a cheaper microcontroller where the allocator overhead won't fit (either the code in flash, or just the bookkeeping in RAM).
Here is the commercial product for which it was designed,
https://reversec.com/usb-armory
A presentation from 2024,
https://www.osfc.io/2024/talks/tamago-bare-metal-go-for-arm-...
You can also see it differently: If the language dictates a 4x increase in memory or CPU usage, you have set a much closer deadline before you need to upgrade the machine or rearchitect your code to become a distributed system by a factor 4 as well.
Previously, delivering a system (likely in C++) that consumed factor 4 fewer resources was an effort that cost developer time at a much higher factor, especially if you had uptime requirements. With Rust and similar low-overhead languages, the ratio changes drastically. It is much cheaper to deliver high-performance solutions that scale to the full capabilities of the hardware.
With Wails it’s also a low friction way to build desktop software (using the heretical web tech that people often reach for, even for this use case), though there are a few GUI frameworks as well.
Either way, self contained executables that are easy to make and during development give you a rich standard library and not too hard of a language to use go a long way!
- It was explicitly intended to "feel dynamically-typed"
- Tries to live by the zen of Python (more than Python itself!)
- Was built during the time it was fashionable to use Python for the kinds of systems it was designed for, with Google thinking at the time that they would benefit from moving their C++ systems to that model if they could avoid incurring the performance problems associated with Python. Guido Van Rossum was also employed at Google during this time. They were invested in that sort of direction.
- Often reads just like Python (when one hasn't gone deep down the rabbit hole of all the crazy Python features)
I know, timelines not matching up, etc.
Zig offers no such thing. It would be a like-for-like replacement of an unsafe old language with an unsafe new one. May even be a better language, but that's not enough reason to overcome the burden.
https://github.com/ityonemo/clr
so yes, I understand that it's important. It doesn't need to be in the compiler though? I think it's likely the case that you also don't need to have annotations littering the language.
It’s like people do it just because Zig is very comparable to C. So the more complex Rust must be like something else that is also complex, right? And C++ is complex, so…
But that is a bit nonsensical. Rust isn’t very close to C++ at all.
For example, high performance servers (voltlane.net), programming languages (https://github.com/HF-Foundation, https://github.com/lionkor/mcl-rs, and one private one), webservers (beampaint.com) and lots of other domains.
Rust is close to C++ in that it is a systems language that allows a reasonable level of zero-cost abstractions.
Writing the compiler toolchains that Rust depends on, industry standards like CUDA, SYSCL, Metal, Unreal or the VFX Reference Platform.
Maybe cranelift will eventually surpass LLVM, but there isn't currently much reason to push for that.
C++ is good for some things regardless of its warts due to ecosystem, and Rust is better in some other ones, like being much safer by default.
Both will have to coexist in decades to come, but we have this culture that doesn't accept matches that end in a draw, it is all about being in the right tribe.
Have you considered that you perhaps do more damage to the conversation by having it with this hypothetical strike force instead of the people that are actually involved in the conversation? Whose feelings are you trying to protect? What hypocrisy are you trying to expose? Is the strike force with us in the room right now?
And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
Or ignoring that for the time being NVidia, Intel, AMD, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, CERN, Argonne National Laboratory and similar, hardly bother with Rust based software for what they do day to day.
They have employees on WG14, WG21, contribute to GCC/clang upstream, and so far have shown no interest in having Rust around on their SDKs or research papers.
Everybody agrees with that, though? Including the people writing rustc.
There's a space for a different thing that does codegen differently (e.g. Cranelift), but that's neither here nor there.
> And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.
There's a huge difference between "Rust depends on LLVM because you couldn't write LLVM in Rust [so we still need C++]" and then "Rust depends on LLVM because LLVM is pretty good". The former is false, the latter is true. Rust is perfectly suited for writing LLVM's eventual replacement, but that's a massive undertaking with very little real value right now.
Rust is young and arguably incomplete for certain use cases, and it'll take a while to mature enough too meet all use cases of C++, but that will happen long before very large institutions are also able to migrate their very large C++ code bases and expertise. This is a multi-decade process.
That's like saying php is close to haskell because they both have garbage collection.
Rust gives us memory safety by default and some awesome ML-ish type system features among other things, which are things we didn’t already have. Memory safety and almost totally automatic memory management with no runtime are big things too.
Go, meanwhile, is like a cleaner more modern Java with less baggage. You might also compare it to Python, but compiled.
Are there any other languages that provide this? Would genuinely consider the switch for some stuff if so.
Rust is not object-oriented.
That makes your statement wrong.
Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
Plenty of OOP architecture can be implemented in C. That's an extremely flawed and fuzzy definition. But we've been through this before.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The issue is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming. Of course, imperative, functional, and object-oriented language can all be either mutable or immutable, but that seems to evade some.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone, because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted in a similar way. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
Exactly. It isn't functional. It doesn't use functions. It uses message passing instead. That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk. It didn't fit within the use of "imperative" and "functional" that preceded it.
> But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
That is the thesis: That Smalltalk is neither imperative nor functional. That is why it was given its own category. Maybe you've already forgotten, but I will remind that it was Smalltalk's creator that invented the term "object-oriented" for Smalltalk. Smalltalk being considered something different is the only reason for why "object-oriented" exists in the lexicon.
Erlang is the language that challenges the common ground thesis: It has both functions with encapsulation and message passing with encapsulation. However, I think that is easily resolved by accepting that it is both functional and object-oriented. That is what Joe Armstrong himself settled on and I think we can too.
> What I prefer is looking at it as it's used.
And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here. Everyone has their own vastly different definition. Just look at how many different definitions we got in this thread alone.
> No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit.
Actually, absent of context defining whether you are referring to culinary or botanical, many actually do think of a cucumber as a fruit. The whole "did you know a tomato is actually a fruit?" is something that made the big leagues in the popular culture. However, your general point is sound: The definitions used are consistent across most people. That is not the case for object-oriented, though. Again, everyone, their brother, and pjmlp have their own thoughts and ideas about what it means. Looking at use isn't going to settle on a useful definition.
Realistically, if you want to effectively use "object-oriented" in your communication, you are going to have to explicitly define it each time.
Sure but your definition doesn't cover it. If language for which the term was coined, it's a bit meaningless, ain't it.
Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
I can see them being necessary but not enough to classify something as OOP.
> And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here.
Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP, but for example C isn't.
Same way when people say and give me a fruit (as in fruits and vegetables), you'd be looked oddly if you gave a cucumber, rather than an apple.
Same way can be thought of OOP. The common definition is basically covers Message-passing-languages, and inheritance/prototype based languages.
Veg = { Cucumber, … }
Fruit As In = Fruit − Veg
How does it not cover it?
> Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.
Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions:
- Imperative: Plain functions (C, Fortran, Pascal).
- Functional: Functions with encapsulation (C++, Java, Haskell, Erlang).
- Object-oriented: Message passing (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Ruby, Erlang).
Let me also reiterate that there are other axis of concerns. Imperative, functional, and object-oriented are not trying to categorize every last feature a programming language might have. Mutable/immutable, or polymorphic/monomorphic, etc. are others concern and can be independently labeled as such.
> Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP
Many do, but just as many hold on to the original definition. Try as you might, you're not going to find a common definition here, I'm afraid. If you want to use the term effectively, you're going to have to explicitly define it each time.
Sigh. Look at what started this whole discussion.
> pjmlp: Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.
I'm fine with object-oriented meaning message passing.
I'm fine with object-oriented being used to describe inheritance based langs Java/C#/C++.
But where that fails miserably is when you try implementing inheritance based stuff like DOM in Rust.
You can't have your cake (all capabilities of OOP) and also eat it too (also most of them missing).
Rust was never about inheritance hierarchies or message passing.
It's just structs with privacy modifiers. And functions that are applied to them.
If you are pointing out that there is no consistent definition for OOP, I agree. I've said so multiple times. Yes, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
It is not clear where you think that might otherwise fit into our discussion? I, to the best of my ability, spelled out the historical definitions that we are talking about so that we had a shared understanding. What someone else may have defined the same words as is irrelevant.
I think we can agree that these dividing lines aren't even useful, but the history behind them is understandable. In the beginning there was imperative programming, named to differentiate from unstructured programming. Then came encapsulation, which didn't fit under imperative, so they named it functional to separate it from imperative. But then came Smalltalk, and it recognized that it doesn't fit under imperative or functional, so it gave itself the name "object-oriented".
If we could go back in time we'd realize that none of these names bring any significance [hence why there is no consistent definition] and throw them away. But we cannot go back in time. We could recognize today that they are just a historical curiosity and throw them away now, but it seems there is too much emotional attachment to them at this point.
So, if you want to use them to satisfy your emotional desires, you can! But you need to also explicitly define them each time so that the reader/listener understands what you mean by it. Failure to do so means they will pick their own pet definition, and then you will talk past each other. There is no commonality found around these terms because, again, any definition you choose (pjmlp's, mine, yours, anyone's) none of them convey any truly useful information, so any definition offered is never retained by anyone else.
> It's pjmlp's insistence that Rust is object-oriented.
It is, for some definition of object-oriented. But this perfectly highlights how there isn't useful information to be found in the use of the term. Even if we all agreed on what object-oriented means, what would you learn from it? Nothing, is what. It was a pointless statement and we can accept it as such.
Sure, for some definition of red, green is red. E.g., colorblind people. I'm interested in more broadly accepted jargon.
The problem is, Rust isn't really object-oriented either. I'm interested in a mostly consistent and hopefully majority definition.
It's not message-passing sense (can't do cool fancy things* a la Ruby or Smalltalk); nor is it inheritance-based (can't do inheritance-based nor prototype-based OOP patterns).
There is one more mathematical definition of whether two features are equal, but it involves languages, local macros, and Turing machines. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc
* There was some kind of message recorder and playback in Ruby/Smalltalk, that I can't find. Basically send methods to objects and record them, then playback them at later date. Will update if I find it.
May I suggest "programming language"? I think you will find that most everyone agrees that Rust is a programming language.
In context, it's functional, but I think you rejecting that historical definition means that you agree with me that the attempt at categorization here doesn't provide any useful information. So, the question here is: What specific information is it that you think is failing to be effectively communicated?
If I take a walk down the street and tell the first guy I meet, "Hey, Rust is a programming language", what information did he miss out on that you find critical?
When we establish that, we might find out there is already a widely recognized term. You won't find it in "object-oriented", however. It has never been used in a context where the information was useful. Even the original message passing definition was never useful as you always had to explain what message passing is at the same time anyway, negating the value of a single word to use as a shorthand.
Words are not given to us naturally by the universe. They are a human invention. Consistent definitions for words only become accepted consistently when those humans find utility in adopting something consistent. "If you build it, they will come" only works in movies.
Expressivity. As the video I linked before shows, there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't. Or lambda's or async.
What terms like "message passing" and "inheritance-based" capture is unique ability of each language to do something novel* other languages can't. Rust as of now lacks such capabilities, although it can probably simulate them to some extent.
*For message passing, it's the method record and replayer. For inheritance-based it can be something like easy DOM manipulation.
Then you might say that Rust is an expressive programming language. But then I'm going to ask: What does expressivity mean?
Ruby is always hailed for its expressivity. Is it also an expressive programming language despite having very little in common with Rust technically?
It seems to me you're going back down the road Kay did thinking that "object-oriented" could become the way to describe his actor based, message passing model. It never caught on because what that means isn't well understood and had to be explained in more detail, so a single word didn't add any value, and thus nobody ever took note of it.
> there is a quantifiable and objective difference between a language that has exceptions and one that doesn't.
Well, I suggest we have a way to say that: {X} {has|does not have} exceptions. The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see. If you need to talk about multiple features, then make it a list: {X} has exceptions, lambdas, and inheritance. Laundry list of features are easy to describe. It is when one wants to speak more conceptually that it is harder to find something of actual value as it is usually the concept that you want to explain.
And maybe that's all you really need to get the information conveyed here? "Rust is a programming language" → "Rust is a programming language that has x, y, and z."
That's not what I mean. Expressivity allows you to objectively test if two languages are different. The functional/objective/imperative are trying to capture some expressive features.
Using expressivity, you can finally put a Turing machine to that feeling and test it.
> The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see.
Missing the point. Message oriented language captures the expressivity of having the ability to send and receive arbitrary methods. This is what I mean.
If OOP or MOP is just a marketing term, then it carries no value.
Which allowed me to port 1:1 the Raytracing Weekend tutorial from the original OOP design in C++ to Rust.
Also the OOP model used by COM and WinRT ABIs, that Microsoft makes heavy use of in their Rust integration across various Windows and Office components.
And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?
But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.
One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.
It replaces C++ for me, so I would say it's "a C++"
- Zig: Let's have a simple language with as few footguns as possible and make good code easy to write. However we value explicitness and allow the developer to do anything they need to do. C interoperability is a primary feature that is always available. We have run time checks for as many areas of undetermined behaviour as we can.
- Rust: let's make the compiler the guardian of what is safe to do. Unless the developer hits the escape hatch, we will disallow behaviour to keep the developer safe. To allow the compiler to reason about safety we will have an intricate type system which will contain concepts like lifetimes and data mobility. This will get complex sometimes so we will have a macro system to hide that complexity.
Zig is a lot simpler than Rust, but I think it asks more of it's developer.
Zig goes for simplicity while removing a few footguns. It's more oriented towards programmer enjoyment. Keep in mind that programmers don't distinguish ease of writing code from ease of writing unforeseen errors.
* except for having unused variables. Those are so dangerous the compiler will refuse the code every time.
Problem solved, everyone happy.
They also made a carriage return crash the compiler so it wouldn't work with any default text files on windows, then they blamed the users for using windows (and their windows version of the compiler!).
It's not exactly logic land, there is a lot of dogma and ideology instead of pragmatism.
Some people would even reply how they were glad it made life difficult for windows users. I don't think they had an answer for why there was a windows version in the first place.
The unused variable warning is legitimately really annoying though and has me inserting `_ = x;` all over the place and then forgetting to delete it, which is imo way worse than just... having it be a warning.
And I don't know any other languages that don't parse a carriage return.
The point is that it was intentionally done to antagonize windows even though they put out a windows version. Some people defend this by saying that it's easy to turn off, some people defend it by saying windows users should be antagonized.
No zig people ever said this was a mistake, it was all intentional.
I'm never going to put up with behavior like that with the people making tools actively working against me.
fair enough.
There are no destructors so all the memory ownership footguns are still there.
If you want to auto-generate destructors, zig has really good comptime features that can let you do that.
The 'not a problem for me' is what people would say about manual memory in C too. Defer is better but it isn't as good as what is already in use.
IMO, Rust is good for modeling static constraints - ideal when there's multiple teams of varying skill trying to work on the same codebase, as the contracts for components are a lot clearer. Zig is good for expressing system-level constructs efficiently: doing stuff like self-referential/intrusive data structures, cross-platform simd, and memory transformations is a lot easier in Zig than Rust.
Personally, I like Zig more.
[0] https://crates.io/users/kprotty
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95801
[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a63150b9cb14896fc22f9...
Rust is what you want your colleagues to write, to enforce good practices and minimise bugs. It's also what I want my past self to have written, because that guy is always doing things that make my present life harder.
Rust is what you use when you'd rather spend time doing sales and marketing for Rust than building software.
Also, my .zig-cache is currently at 173GB, which causes some issues on the small Linux ARM VPS I test with.
As for upgrades. I upgraded lightpanda to 0.14 then 0.15 and it was fine. I think for lightpanda, the 0.16 changes might not be too bad, with the only potential issue coming from our use of libcurl and our small websocket server (for CDP connections). Those layers are relatively isolated / abstracted, so I'm hopeful.
As a library developer, I've given up following / tracking 0.16. For one, the change don't resonate with me, and for another, it's changing far too fast. I don't think anyone expects 0.16 support in a library right now. I've gotten PRs for my "dev" branches from a few brave souls and everyone seems happy with that arrangement.
Do you see any major problems when you remove your .zig-cache and start over?
I was searching around for causes and came across the following issues: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/15358 which was moved to https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/30193
The following quotes stand out
> zig's caching system is designed explicitly so that garbage collection could happen in one process simultaneously while the cache is being used by another process.
> I just ran WizTree to find out why my disk was full, and the zig cache for one project alone was like 140 GB.
> not only the .zig-cache directory in my projects, but the global zig cache directory which is caching various dependencies: I'm finding each week I have to clear both caches to prevent run-away disk space
Like what's going on? This doesn't seem normal at all. I also read somewhere that zig stores every version of your binary as well? Can you shed some light on why it works like this in zigland?
I don't use zig. My experience has been that caches themselves are sources of bugs (not talking about zig only, but in general). Clearing all relevant caches occasionally is useful when you're experiencing weird bugs.
It's not even an argument that you're wrong, just that it's not contributing much and people think that other replies should come first.
Zig has had caching bugs/issues/limitations that could be worked around by clearing the cache. (Has had, and more that likely still has, and will have.)
There is still this disconnection on how languages under ISO process work in the industry.
By the way this applies to the C language so beloved on this corner as well.
As it does to COBOL, Fortran, Ada and JS (ECMA is not much different from ISO).
After many years of insisting that "dialects" of C++ are a terrible idea, despite the reality that most C++ users have a specific dialect they use - Bjarne Stroustrup has endorsed essentially the same thing but as "profiles" to address safety issues. So for people who think there is a "great language" in there perhaps in C++ 29 or C++ 32 you will be able to find out for yourselves that you're wrong.
- Cranelift applies less optimizations in exchange for faster compilation times, because it was developed to compile WASM (wasmtime), but turns out that is good enough for Rust debug builds.
- Cranelift does not support the wide range of platforms (AFAIK just X86_64 and some ARM targets)
There is a whole ecosystem of contributions across the globe and the lingua franca used by those contributors.
which is slowly changing with wider rust adaptation.
It's notable that the projects you mentioned mostly don't need to deal with adversarial user input, while the projects I mentioned do. That's one area that Rust shines in.
Android team is quite clear that Java, Kotlin, C and C++ are the official languages for app developers.
Chrome even has less Rust than Firefox.
Linux has some baby adoption, and it isn't without drama, even with Microsoft and Google pushing for it.
Chrome only needs to replace the parts of their codebase that handle untrusted input with Rust to get substantial benefits. Like codec parsers. They don't need to rewrite everything, just the parts that need rewriting. The parts that are impossible to get right in C++, to the point where Chrome spins up separate processes to run that code.
Rust is the future for Android, and it will become an important of Chrome and Linux and git (starting 3.0). That's just the way it is.
Same for the Metal shading language. C++ adds exactly nothing useful to a shading language over a C dialect that's extended with vector and matrix math types (at least they didn't pick ObjC or Swift though).
...that's just because of the traditional-game-dev Stockholm syndrome towards C++ (but not too much C++ please!).
> Khronos future for Vulkan
As far as I'm aware Khronos is not planning to move the Vulkan API to C++ - and the 'modern C++' sample code which adds a C++ RAII wrapper on top of the Vulkan C API does more harm than good (especially since lifetime management for Vulkan object is a bit more involved than just adding a class wrapper with a destructor).
There is more than one sample using C++, now they make use of C++20, including modules if desired.
It's in line with many other shitty design decisions coming out of Khronos, so I'm not even surprised ;)
IMHO it's a pretty big problem when the spec is on an entirely different abstraction level than the sample code (those new samples also move significant code into 'helper classes', which means all the interesting stuff is hidden away).
This puts much more work on the compiler development side, but it's a great boon for the ecosystem.
To be fair, zig is pre 1.0, but Zig is also already 8 years old. Rust turned 1.0 at ~ 5 years, I think.
I could make a bet that as of 2026 still more C++ projects are being started than Rust + Zig combined.
World is much more vast than ShowHN and GitHub would indicate.
I asked him about in a thread a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47206009#47209313
The makers of TigerBeatle also rave about how good Zig is.
Packages do fall behind. We only use a couple, so it's pretty easy to point to an internal fork while we wait for upstream to update or to accept our updates. That'd probably be a pain point if you were using a lot of them.
Zig has a better support for sqlite/JSON serialization (everything is strongly typed and validated) than Node.js, so that was a plus as well.
Zig minuses are well known: lack of syntax sugar for closures/lambdas/vtable, which makes it hard to isolate layers of code for independent development.
We use Arcs (atomic reference counting) with resource scopes (bumper allocators) extensively, so memory safety is not a concern despite aggressively multithreading logic. The default allocator automatically detects memory leaks, use-after-free, etc so we are planning to continue running it in DebugSafe indefinitely. We tried switching to ReleaseFast and gained about 25%, which is not that much faster to lose memory safety guarantees.
> Are there cases where packages you may use fall behind the language?
Using third party packages is quite problematic yes. I don't recommend using them too much personally, unless you want to make more work for yourself.
I think one of the more PITA changes necessary to get these projects to 0.15 is removing `usingnamespace`, which I've used to implement a kind of mixin. The projects are all a few thousand LOC and it shouldn't be that much trouble, but enough trouble that none of what I gain from upgrading currently justify doing it. I think that's fine.
Just a degree of success?
Color me extremely sceptical. Surely if you could make javascript fast google would have tried a decade ago....
Surely nobody would use javascript for either yea? The weaknesses of the language are amplified in constrained environments: low certainty, high memory pressure, high startup costs.
It's probably the most popular language for serverless.
When people go AWS, Azure, GCP,... other languages take the reigns.
Anyway, their decision to implement a TUI was definitely not done out of laziness nor even pragmatism. It was a fashion choice. A deliberate choice to put their product in the same vibes-space as console jockey hotshot unix pros who spit out arcane one liners to get shit done. They very easily could have asked claude to write itself a proper GUI interface which completely avoids all the pitfalls of TUIs and simplifies a lot of things they went out of their way to make work in a TUI. Support for drag-and-drop for instance, isn't something you'll find in many TUIs but they have it. They put care into making this TUI, the problem is that TUIs are kind of shit, and they certainly know that. They did it this way anyway effectively for marketting reasons.