I would really love to see something like Zig's comptime in Rust. Rust attribute macros as compiler time reflection emulation that operate with tokens are total hell
priority of rust is safety, priority of zig is extreme performance via allocators cache friendly data structures simd etc... different philosophies different tradeoffs
Rust's priority is correctness, but it's not prescriptive, that's why unsafe exists. People write extremely performant software in Rust just fine all the time. Custom allocators, cache-friendly data structures, and SIMD - all of that is available.
I find it more and more obvious that Rust is the metaphorical C++ successor and Zig is the not so metaphorical C succesor. But with C it's a bit harder to decide for me. There are a number of C replacements that feel equally good.
How so? I find working in Rust as productive as my old days of C and C++. When coding in any language one needs "unsafe" to do get any I/O. Without any I/O a program would be useless. On bare metal that typically means you need "unsafe" only for some small parts of code that hit peripheral registers and such. As such "unsafe" is confined to clearly delineated, small, blocks of code it is easier to verify than have the entire application be "unsafe". Hence correctness is more easily achieved. I know nothing of Zig, sounds great, but when making language comparisons we should at least be factual rather than purely emotive.
IMO, Zig is the most exciting and promising language in the space of high-performance programming.
Jarred was just getting warmed up at the end. The talk favored Rust for the most part, but Jarred is doing great stuff with a pre-v1.0 language.
I would really love to see something like Zig's comptime in Rust.
Rust attribute macros as compiler time reflection emulation that operate with tokens are total hell
Rust is total hell itself
priority of rust is safety, priority of zig is extreme performance via allocators cache friendly data structures simd etc... different philosophies different tradeoffs
Rust's priority is correctness, but it's not prescriptive, that's why unsafe exists. People write extremely performant software in Rust just fine all the time. Custom allocators, cache-friendly data structures, and SIMD - all of that is available.
I find it more and more obvious that Rust is the metaphorical C++ successor and Zig is the not so metaphorical C succesor. But with C it's a bit harder to decide for me. There are a number of C replacements that feel equally good.
Odin lang and Nim lang.
@@PRIMARYATIAS Nim is not a replacement for C. It uses a garbage collector which immediately disqualifies it.
Jarred Sumner is in a different level. Legend!
Working with rust is not productive for a project, and its safety is not provided when you code on low level metal layer anyway, so zig all the way ⚡️
How so? I find working in Rust as productive as my old days of C and C++. When coding in any language one needs "unsafe" to do get any I/O. Without any I/O a program would be useless. On bare metal that typically means you need "unsafe" only for some small parts of code that hit peripheral registers and such. As such "unsafe" is confined to clearly delineated, small, blocks of code it is easier to verify than have the entire application be "unsafe". Hence correctness is more easily achieved. I know nothing of Zig, sounds great, but when making language comparisons we should at least be factual rather than purely emotive.
Yeah in two weeks we learn how to write hello world.