config VS zig

I actually quite like the config, seems intuitive! Though, I am comparing it to this abomination, so I might have low expectations here :-)

4) For scripts you put for everyday use in ~/bin, I've found busybox style multipurpose binary invaluable. You put all your scripts into a single Rust binary, and than hard-link this binary under different names in PATH, so that the first argv is actually the name of subcommand. Here's how the infra works for my scripts, and here's an example script.

1) Invest into application-level profiling, using tracing::span! for collection and something like tracing_tracy or tracing_span_tree for visualization. This should give you high-level logical profile. 2) If on Linux, learn a bare minimum of perf for collecting data (the extent of my knowledge about perf is basically this script https://github.com/matklad/config/blob/master/tool/src/prf.rs). Use neither flamegraph.pl nor cargo flamegraph for visualization, use https://profiler.firefox.com/ instead.

And, while a spam links, here’s a link with more links: https://github.com/matklad/config/blob/master/links.adoc

It's "Zig" not "Zag". https://ziglang.org/ Zig is under heavy development, but there's a single page https://ziglang.org/documentation/0.12.0/ that is a reasonably comprehensive source of truth about the current state of the language.

There is an issue proposing this approach: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/4284

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/224

e.g.:

> > When debugging/prototyping, it's useful to comment out a line without having to refactor, e.g.

When writing code in a scripting language, sometimes you need that extra bit of performance (or maybe an async feature from Zig).

NodeJS is by no means a slow runtime, it wouldn’t be so popular if it was. But compared to Bun, it’s slow. Bun was built from the ground up with speed in mind, using both JavascriptCore and Zig. The Bun team spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make Bun fast, including lots of profiling, benchmarking, and optimizations.

ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart()

There are valid reasons to use APIs from NTDLL. Where I disagree with zig#1840 is the idea that it is always better to use NTDLL versions of API. Every other software ecosystem uses the standard Win32 APIs and diverging from that without a good reason seems like a good way to have unexpected behavior. One concrete example is most users and programmers expect Windows to redirect some file system paths when running on WOW64. But this is implemented in Kernel32, not ntdll.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/11894