zig VS go

Actually, nobody.

Here is the commit where Reader/Writer was introduced: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/commit/5e212db29cf9e2c06aba36...

This is a few months after `git init`. You can see I was really just working on the parser, with a toy example to get things started.

Over time, I merged contributions that made minor changes and shuffled things around, and these APIs evolved to kind of work okay. But nobody really considered "the Zig IO stack" as a whole and put in design effort. That is happening for the first time right now.

This list's Zig as an entry, despite the Zig project having very clear plans[0] for a 1.0 release. That's not 0ver, it's just the beta stage of semver.

[0] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/milestone/2

I usually structure teaching the same way done in https://www.writethedocs.org/videos/eu/2017/the-four-kinds-o.... So "the Quick Walkthrough Guide will explain what dk scripts are and give you small examples to run" is simply a learning-oriented tutorial which is mostly about giving students confidence and visual feedback. And simultaneously it an explanation of nothing (the video has a great explanation for why to do that). So, I agree that an explanation of threads + Internet + cross-compilation would quite nuts, but for an experienced developer I'd expect to see a meaty example (take a look at https://ziglang.org/ for comparison).

One concrete action may be to make two distinct Quick Start guides ... one for the experienced and one for the inexperienced students though. Is that your thinking?

> I feel like I can write powerful code in any language, but the goal is to write code for a framework that is most future proof, so that you can maintain modular stuff for decades.

I like Zig a lot, but long-term maintainability and modularity is one of its weakest points IMHO.

Zig is hostile to encapsulation. You cannot make struct members private: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/9909#issuecomment-9426...

Key quote:

> The idea of private fields and getter/setter methods was popularized by Java, but it is an anti-pattern. Fields are there; they exist. They are the data that underpins any abstraction. My recommendation is to name fields carefully and leave them as part of the public API, carefully documenting what they do.

You cannot reasonably form API contracts (which are the foundation of software modularity) unless you can hide the internal representation. You need to be able to change the internal representation without breaking users. I hope Zig reverses this decision someday and supports private fields.

> Did Zig really do that?

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/544#issuecomment-61807...

> In order to simplify everything, tabs are not allowed. Spaces are necessary; we can't ban spaces.

They seem to be open to the alternative but not to a solution that isn't forced on people:

> Maybe someday, we'll switch to tabs for indentation, spaces for alignment and make it a compile error if they are incorrectly mixed

Zig already has a builtin code formatter that automatically changes formatting to their preference, but that's not enough.

Zig solved this by not having a string type at all and not shipping full Unicode support in std: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/234#issuecomment-27630....

Bun is written from scratch in Zig, a low-level language focused on performance and safety. Instead of using V8 (the engine behind Node and Deno), Bun runs on JavaScriptCore, the engine used in Safari. This choice helps it stay fast and efficient, both in terms of memory and startup time.

> I didn't realize how important order was to type inference.

I was unclear, I'm afraid. You can reorder the type parameters, it just changes which of them you need to specify: https://go.dev/play/p/oDIFl3fZiPl

The point is that you can only leave off elements from the end of the list, to have them automatically inferred.

> Are there any real packages out there using these techniques?

I think so far, the usage of generics for containers in Go is still relatively sparse, in public code. I think in part that is because the documentation of how to do that is relatively sparse. That is part of the motivation for the post, to have a bit of somewhat official documentation for these things, so they become more widely known.

The standard library is just starting to add generic containers: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/69559 And part of that is discussing how we want to do things like this: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/70471

That being said, I have used the pointer receiver thing in my dayjob. One example is protobuf. We have a generic helper to set a protobuf enum from the environment. Because of how the API was designed, that required a pointer receiver constraint.

Source code for sync.Cond.Wait() (Go standard library) https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/sync/cond.go For those who want to go under the hood and see how Wait() really works internally (with runtime_notifyListWait).

> Lack of proper enums is hurting so much I can't describe it.

Do you mean sum types? Its enums function just pretty much like enums in every single other language under the sun. If anything, Go enums are more advanced than most languages, allowing things like bit shifts. But at the heart of it all, it's all just the same. Here are enum implementations in both Go and Rust:

[Go] https://github.com/golang/go/blob/f18d046568496dd331657df4ba...

[Rust] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/40daf23eeb711dadf140b...

While Go leans on the enumerator value produced by `range`, while Rust performs explicit incrementing, the outcome is no different — just plain [n=0, n++].

This is one of the many things where Go just takes care of automatically. Since Go 1.19, if you import the os package, on startup, the open file soft limit will be raised to the hard limit: https://github.com/golang/go/commit/8427429c592588af8c49522c...

For a deeper dive, check out the source code for sync.Cond.

> But is know that the current way of Go (that is a insignificant improvement over the C way) sucks and ANY of the other ways are truly better […]

This is a bold statement for something so subjective. I'll note that the proposal to leave the status quo as-is is probably one of the most favorably voted Go proposals of all time: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/32825

Go language design is not a popularity contest or democracy (if nothing else because it is not clear who would get a vote). But you won't find any other proposal with thousands of emoji votes, 90% of which are in favor.

I get the criticism and I agree with it to a degree. But boldly stating that criticism as objective and universal is uninformed.

Relevant proposal to make GOMAXPROCS cgroup-aware: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/73193