Zig vs Rust. Which one is going to be future? : programming

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Honestly C is the future. I don't know why people would move from C to any other language. It does the job well enough that there's no reason not to use it.

Think about it. Every modern application depends on a piece of code written in C, not Rust or Zig or any other language (except assembly). It can be used to solve any problem, and works in more places than any other language.

These arguments about "security" and "memory safety" are all pointless anyway in the face of modern code scanning tools. Cross-platform dev can be done trivially with preprocessors. If that's not enough, I don't know what to say. Get better at writing C obviously.

Lifetimes and UB should all be kept in mind at all times. You can explicitly mark lifetimes in your C code if you want using comments. Any index-out-of-bounds bugs, use-after-free, etc are just signs that your team needs more training and better code scanning utils. Write more tests!

Anything more complex than a simple typedef is just a sign that you're over-engineering your solution. #include is both simple, and does exactly what you'd expect any reasonable language to do - paste your referenced code inline. It's genius, and doesn't require any complicated explanations on namespaces and classes and subclasses and so on.

So which will be the future? C obviously.

/s

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago

You got me in the first 3 quarters, not gonna lie!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The number of people that genuinely believe this ( I saw the /s) .. Tells me that they haven't written any useful C or C++ code

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

... or worked in a large team with juniors and members coming and going over a long period of time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Or worked on a similar team where the C & C++ was mostly written over a decade ago by dudes in another country who loved multi threading, and some of the “new” features were half-completed about 5 years ago, and nothing is documented, and oh yeah not a single person who did any of that still works at the company. Team is made of great people but all have been here for 0-3 years.

The idea of Rust being roughly as fast and low level as C++ but with improvements to memory safety and concurrency sounds heavenly. I know it’s in the back of most of our minds to look into it for the next big project.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not going to say that C is unusable by any means (and I'm not saying you are saying that). It's a perfectly usable language. I do think that more people would benefit from exploring other options though. Programming languages are tools, not sports teams. People should familiarize themselves with many tools so they always have a good tool to use for any job.

I think a lot of people believe this because there is some truth to parts of it. I think we see languages like Rust and Zig (and others) popping up to try and solve specific problems better than others.

As for OP's post, there is no single "C successor" or anything like that. People will use the best tool they know of for the job whether that's C, Rust, C++, Zig, Python, C#, etc. Many languages will "replace" C in some projects, and at the same time, C will replace other languages in some projects (likely to a lesser extent though).

(Not /s this time)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh completely. C is here to stay, C has surpassed language and become protocol cause of libc being so centric to Unix like languages. But it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully. The other languages are solving some of the pain points C has which I think a lot of people would be better off using than C.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Down that path C may become somewhat of an intermediate representation language for binary interfaces. No one would write it by hand, and maybe for the better

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Rust. It's a qualitative improvement over the old ways.

The future won't belong to Rust itself, but one of its descendants. Rust is too clunky to be the ultimate expression of its best ideas.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In what ways do you feel Rust is too clunky and how do you think it could be improved? Not looking to argue or even disagree necessarily; I'm just curious where that perspective comes from.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Here's some of my personal complaints. I don't in general know how to fix them.

proc_macros need their own crate
generics cause problems. Many useful macros can't handle them. Try using a generic that's a complex async function, then pass a closure to it.
There's this kind of weird mismatch where sometimes you want an enum wrapping various types, and in others generics. I find my data flows switching back and forth.
async in rust is actually really good, but go does it better. I don't think rust could match go without becoming a different language.
Traits are just a big mess. Trait implementations with generics have to be mutually exclusive, but there aren't any good tools to make them so. The orphaned trait rule is necessary to keep the language sane but is incredibly restricting. Just today I find certain a attribute macros for impls that doesn't work on trait impls. I guess I have to write wrappers for every trait method.
The "new type" pattern. Ugh. Just make something like a type alias that creates a distinct type. This one's probably easy to fix.
Cargo is truly great, but it's a mystery to me right now how I'm going to get it to work with certain packaging systems.

To me, Rust is a bunch of great pieces that don't fit together well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Cargo is truly great, but it's a mystery to me right now how I'm going to get it to work with certain packaging systems.

Yeah, Cargo itself doesn't deal with any of the bundling after the executable is built.

For that stuff, the efforts are certainly still ongoing. There's no grand unified tool yet.

If you just want e.g. a DEB file, then you probably want this: https://crates.io/crates/cargo-deb

But if you want to do more in CI, then there's kind of three popular options that I'm aware of.

just: More or less a shell script runner, and kind of like make.
cargo-make: A lot of effort has been put into this, it's certainly got a good amount of features, but personally not a fan, since it makes you write a custom TOML format and then ideally you should be writing a custom script language, DuckScript. You can also use Rust scripts with it, which we tried, but there was just no way of passing parameters between tasks.
cargo-xtask: This is not a tool, it's a pattern, basically just build your own build tool. It does have its downfalls, you're not going to build good caching into your own build tool, for example. But in principle I find this quite workable, as you get to write your CI code in Rust. There's also more and more community-made libraries to aid with that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Thanks, I've save your comment. I haven't heard of any of these.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Great suggestions! One nitpick:

But in principle I find this quite workable, as you get to write your CI code in Rust.

Having used xtask in the past, I’d say this is a downside. CI code is tedious enough to debug as it is, and slowing down the cycle by adding Rust compilation into the mix was a horrible experience. To add, CI is a unique environment where Rust’s focus on correctness isn’t very valuable, since it’s an isolated, project-specific environment anyway.

I’d rather use Deno or indeed just for that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Rust is a bunch of great pieces that don't fit together well.

That might change over time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Have... you met C?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Google has already started to use Rust in their android operating system. Linux started getting Rust stuff. Rust has the speed of C/C++ while having memory safety. Zig does not have the same memory safety as Rust, it's a mere C/C++ alternative. Does that answer your question?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Unless Zig starts its own cult, I feel Rust will win in the end.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

The thing with rust is that it is awesome. It does exactly what it promises and everyone keeps going on about.

If you want to talk cult talk to c developers. They are so indoctrinated. They say things like "undefined behaviour is fine you just have to code around it" "it's great there's almost no surface area to the standard lib as you can now trust your fellow developers to perfectly write all constructs" "yeah it causes uncountable security vulnerabilities (even when written by it's foremost experts) but that's unskilled developers and not a language problem"

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Zig is a modern C. Rust is a (modern) alternative to C++. So two different languages can exist alongside each other, just like C and C++.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Is zig memory safe by design? If not, rust will "win". Large companies aren't going to hire for an unknown or unpopular memory unsafe language when they already have C or C++ - there's just no contest.

Last I read, zig didn't even have a standard string library. Unless that changes, it won't even be a viable alternative to C/C++.

Edit: I checked and got this

the Zig language, like C, entrusts memory management to humans, placing full trust in human development. Zig then provides some memory safety checks to ensure memory safety. However, it still lacks the strict compile-time guarantees of Rust’s ownership system and borrow checker. Therefore, when writing Zig code, developers need to pay more attention to potential memory safety issues and ensure that errors and exceptional situations are handled correctly.

Rust Magazine

Anti Commercial-AI license

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Isn't exactly this kind of thing what is mostly responsible for the demise of Perl?

As I heard it told, the developers of Perl worked so long & hard on the next version after Perl 5, but then veered off to make a new language (Raku) and despite the reality being otherwise, people feared so much that Perl would die (i.e. that 6 would never materialize) that in the meantime "everyone" had switched to Python (despite it clearly being an inferior language - hehehehe:-P).

So that would be a "con" I suppose, if fights over which language is better ends up diluting efforts to work on or with either.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the demise of Perl

You imply this is a bad thing

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have never quite understood this mode of thinking - I think it must be an imprecise statement. Yes, improper usage of Perl coding can be bad, but then so too can C/C++ with e.g. improper memory management? Yet, I don't see people knocking down doors to learn the memory-safe Rust (and e.g. thereby be able to contribute to the Lemmy codebase), probably bc despite it being "better", it also has a steep learning curve (and I don't even know but I would assume: even for someone who already knows C?). Instead, people seem to want to learn Go, or Java - okay so that's a rabbit hole b/c they are for entirely different purposes, but anyway I mean that each language has its own balance of trade-offs.

So while on the one hand the worst-case scenario from a poor coder for Perl seems significantly worse than for Python, there are also benefits too: doesn't Perl run up to 20x faster than Python, which is why many places e.g. booking.com have chosen to use it? In the hands of an experienced person, perl code is quite readable, while in contrast, I just absolutely HATE aspects of Python such as whitespace delimiting and the package management, plus I don't know if I am imagining things (is is likely) but the code just seems to me to look obtuse, by comparison.

Sometimes I'll use awk, other times I'll bump that up to a Perl one-liner or even full script, still other times demand Python or for number-crunching full C/C++, or Java for whatever reason, but... for things that you want fast & easy, I don't really see Perl as "bad"? Granted, it shouldn't be someone's first language these days, compared to C or Python, but what is wrong with it, like awk, continuing to exist these days? Especially if it's not in a production environment.

I'm listening.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Collaboration is a fact of life in software development.

Therefore we must choose tools based not on a single developer’s preference, but by what their colleagues can use effectively.

Tools that are easy to write bugs with (C/C++)
Tools that are hard to learn (Perl)
Tools that are hard to hire for (Perl, Ruby)

All of these should be fixed or shunned in favor of languages that are easier to hire, easier to learn, and easier to debug.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

So *I* who am careful to write readable and safe code, have to use a non-preferred language preference b/c someone else cannot handle using it properly?!

Sadly, that is the realization that I have come to as well. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and all that... but no, really, that's true, b/c modifications are likely to be made at some point (kinda biasing towards production there but even so, answers with perl one-liners on e.g. StackOverflow are ubiquitous, but someone would have to know the language to be able to modify them to suit their specific use-case, so also not at the same time).

Fwiw I really did not think that Perl was hard to learn - though that was coming from the likes of assembly, various Basic styles, C/C++, and having already learned regular expressions via Unix e.g. grep and awk and sed. "Regular expressions" are quite a steep learning curve, though that's not the same thing as Perl, and quite frankly Perl is the undisputed (iirc?) master of them all, so whether someone wanted to write Perl without those, or wanted to do try to do regular expressions without Perl, either way Perl seems good for having included regular expressions, not something to penalize the entire language for. Also, C/C++ (and Rust) has a bit of a known learning curve as well...:-) Though indeed it's entirely fair to say that if someone were to pick just one language, then I would be hard pressed to find any justification for that being Perl. C/C++, Java, Python - all of these, depending on the situation, are fine choices, whereas Perl is absolutely niche.

But even so, why would it follow that it would necessarily be a good thing if Perl, or let's say awk, would fully "go away"? I kinda see Perl and awk as being in the same boat these days - both niche and powerful, yet both steadily becoming obsolete? Just b/c something else is "better" doesn't mean that everything else must die. Except, as you mentioned, for reasons of collaboration and thus code-reuse. Even there though, putting all of our eggs into a single basket scares me: what if tomorrow Microsoft, or Google, decides to purchase the rights to Python and suddenly control that entire industry sector in one fell swoop?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Personal projects vs everything else:

Did you want to collaborate with other people? Use something other people like.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So I who am careful to write readable and safe code

I just want to point out that it's hard to be sure your code is readable if you don't work with a team. More than once I saw people write "readable" code that was not readable. My own code I deemed "readable" was in fact not, as time had shown when I returned to fix something. So, the cited part looks a bit arrogant 😅

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Fair - and in fact doubly so bc even code that is readable in a language that someone else does not know (well) isn't so "readable" by definition. i.e. "readable by someone who knows the language" != "readable by most developers".

Though having to rediscover how our code works is something shared by all languages. Perl does allow the worst there though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Isn’t exactly this kind of thing what is mostly responsible for the demise of Perl?

Perl died because better tools became available.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Since you're asking today the answer is Rust because it is already more mature. In 5-10 years if you asked them the answer might be different if zig sticks around.

This is no shade against zig! It's just very new. It doesn't have a 1.0 release yet.

Also, they're very different languages with very different goals. They aren't necessarily competing in the same space.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Who wants oxidised Metal when you can take off every Zig! You know what you doing!? Move Zig. For great justice.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Which one's in the Linux kernel?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's too early to tell.

Rust has a killer feature and a tonne of buzz, but poor ergonomics.

Zig is developing into simple elegance and wonderful interop, but has more work to do before it will be widely usable.

It's entirely possible that ideas and lessons taken from them will inspire another language that ends up eclipsing them both.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I would say at this point in time it’s clearly decided that Rust will be part of the future. Maybe there’s a meaningful place for Zig too, but that’s the only part that’s too early to tell.

If you think Zig still has a chance at overtaking Rust though, that’s very much wishful thinking. Zig isn’t memory safe, so any areas where security is paramount are out of reach for it. The industry isn’t going back in that direction.

I actually think Zig might still have a chance in game development, and maybe in specialized areas where Rust’s borrow checker cannot really help anyway, such as JIT compilers.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Why not both?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I hope that someone in the 40 comments i don't have time to read right now has pointed out that the premise of OP is flawed for the simple reason that Rust hit v1.0 in 2015, while Zig is still nowhere near that milestone in 2024.

So we are not even talking about the same "future" period from the start.

So, no need to get to the second false premise in OP, which is limiting a "future" period to one successful dominating language only. Nor is there a need to go beyond these premises and discuss actual language details/features.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What are your goals?

If you want to learn another language just for the fun of it (the best reason) than learn both.

Of you want to improve your tool set to be able to land a job, then there is no good answer. Probably some other high level language like Python, Java, JavaScript, C#. Etc.

Also: Zig bay be easier to get started when coming from C, because it is mostly imperative.

Rust introduces concepts from functional programming. This could be interesting for you, of you don't have any experience in functional programming to get in touch with other programming styles. Or not, of you explicitly don't want to learn such things.

I use both languages, and I enjoy both. Shameless plug: I've written a blog post ~ 2 years ago what I like about each language: https://zigurust.gitlab.io/blog/posts/three-things/

load more comments (1 replies)

Programming

Rules

Wormhole