cc-rs VS ziglyph

It does support calling into other compilers and toolchains through build scripts and such. Take cc-rs[0] for example: this allows building C and C++ files natively without even calling an executable yourself.

In practice, I'd expect libraries to just call make/cmake/ninja for you, or (like openssl-sys) ask you to install the necessary libraries using your favourite package manager.

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs

The cc crate (https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs) is widely used for compiling C code from Rust (often in a build.rs file for the purpose of wrapping a C library so that it can be used from Rust). However, I believe it generally does expect a C compiler to be present.

It might be quite tedious to compile static library manually every time we make changes in C code. The better solution is to instead utilize the cc crate, which provides an idiomatic Rust interface to the compiler provided by the host.

https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs This crates lets you shell out to a C compiler when building your Rust project

> You're splitting hairs in a weird way. rustc cannot compile C code. zig can.

But why do I care? I don't use rustc directly, the build system of choice does. And very few of the major build systems have an issue handling multiple languages.

Cargo (rust's build system) supports build scripts and the community has already created C/C++ compiler hooks such as https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs

rustup and cargo also provide easy cross-compilation support, too.

I think it's getting confused because link.exe is in your PATH. But it's not the link.exe it expects. Link tools are detected using the cc crate so it would need to be fixed there. Would you be willing to open an issue about this?

It’s not super well-documented, but there is an option to change this. --remap-path-prefix $(pwd)= in your RUSTFLAGS will usually do the trick. If you have any C dependencies you’ll also need similar things in CFLAGS, see https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs/issues/593

> My big problem with Zig is that Andrew Kelley is promising a lot of features, but doesn't really deliver much.

Have you, like, seen the release notes for 0.9.0?

https://ziglang.org/download/0.9.0/release-notes.html

> Zig still can't proper handle UTF-8 strings [1] in 2022

There's plenty of discussion on the subject in basically every HN thread about Zig: the stdlib has some utf8 and wtf validation code, ziglyph implements the full unicode spec.

https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph

You might not like how it's done, but its factually incorrect to state that Zig can't handle unicode.

> In a `recent` interview[2], he claims that Zig is faster than C and Rust, but he refers to extremely short benchmarking that has almost no value in the real world.

From my reddit reply to this same topic:

This podcast interview might not be the best showcase of the practical implications of Zig's take on safety and performance. If you want something with more meat, I highly recommend Andrew's recent talk from Handmade Seattle, where he shows the work being done on the Zig self-hosted compiler.

https://media.handmade-seattle.com/practical-data-oriented-d...

Lots of bit fiddling that can't be fully proven safe statically, but then you get a compiler capable of compiling Zig code stupidly fast, and that's even without factoring in incremental compilation with in-place binary patching, with which we're aiming for sub-millisecond rebuilds of arbitrarily large projects.

> The ecosystem for zig is insignificant now and a stable release would help the language.

I hope you don't mind if we don't take this advice, given the overall tone of your post.

For Unicode text processing you can take a look at Ziglyph https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph and for a sample UTF-8 string structure, Zigstr https://github.com/jecolon/zigstr . (bias alert: I'm the author of both. :^D )

Agreed, and Zig also has a lib for that as well:

https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph/

Yes, sorry about that - I omitted a bit of that information for brevity.

If you want to play with allkeys.txt (which is by far much more sequential, simpler data than UnicodeData.txt) then you only need to remove the non-NFD strings (since the Unicode Collation Algorithm's first step requires you to decompose the string's code points to canonical NFD form), that removes ~2,000 entries.

The full file parser code, which strips those out and other useless information like comments and version information can be found here: https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph/blob/main/src/collator/Al...

If you want to play around with UnicodeData.txt (which is less sequential, more complex data) then only two fields are used (the code point and decomposition field), and only records where the second field is not empty (the full decomposition type name in angle brackets is not needed, only whether it is or is not there is important.)

The full parser code for that file can be found here: https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph/blob/main/src/normalizer/...

Hope that helps!