6 ms·

> There is no sense pretending anymore that languages with as many gotchas as C and Zig are "simple". Quite simply, they are not. The complexities lie in what's

by K0nserv 2mo ago

> There is no sense pretending anymore that languages with as many gotchas as C and Zig are "simple". Quite simply, they are not. The complexities lie in what's left unspoken, unaddressed, and of course undefined; failure to comprehend these completely can be catastrophic. This is where I’ve arrived too. After nearly 20 years of programming I feel done with leaving foot guns lying around. Languages that are full of them, but “fine” as long as you take extreme care are not interesting to me. I’ve started calling this “simple as long as you avoid all the foot guns” idea the sword juggling fallacy[0]. It’s too bad about Zig because it has many nice ideas, in particular allocators, that I hope Rust or some future language will adopt. 0: https://hugotunius.se/2026/06/15/the-sword-juggling-fallacy.html https://hugotunius.se/2026/06/15/the-sword-juggling-fallacy....

dnautics 2mo ago
yeah rust has no footguns. just dont try to mix clone with iter.
- K0nserv 2mo ago
  Of course Rust has a few footguns too, that's not my point.
skydhash 2mo ago
There are many things in life that are "fine" only when you take extreme care (knives, cars, industrial machinery,...). The thing is something like C has many usages and you can't just say "use Rust" and be done with it. Using Rust is not cost-free.
- K0nserv 2mo ago
  I'm not saying "never use C". The thing I dislike is the false dichotomy between "(Zig|C|Go) is simple unlike Rust, which is complex". A statement like that makes it sound like writing correct code in the former is easier when it's, in fact harder.
  - dnautics 2mo ago
    the thing is, as a pattern, footguns in zig are simple and easy to reason about (though they might be hard for an ADHD human to find). the compositional nature of rust sometimes makes footguns "hard to see" because they can be hidden behind layers of abstraction. there is a potential future where an llm with unbounded patience would have an easy time literally walking through the zig code looking for one of the footguns might miss a footgun in rust because it's abstracted away. the ones in the stdlib should give you pause. what is hiding in some third party library's code?

by K0nserv 2mo ago

dnautics 2mo ago

yeah rust has no footguns. just dont try to mix clone with iter.

K0nserv 2mo ago
Of course Rust has a few footguns too, that's not my point.

skydhash 2mo ago

There are many things in life that are "fine" only when you take extreme care (knives, cars, industrial machinery,...). The thing is something like C has many usages and you can't just say "use Rust" and be done with it. Using Rust is not cost-free.

K0nserv 2mo ago
I'm not saying "never use C". The thing I dislike is the false dichotomy between "(Zig|C|Go) is simple unlike Rust, which is complex". A statement like that makes it sound like writing correct code in the former is easier when it's, in fact harder.
- dnautics 2mo ago
  the thing is, as a pattern, footguns in zig are simple and easy to reason about (though they might be hard for an ADHD human to find). the compositional nature of rust sometimes makes footguns "hard to see" because they can be hidden behind layers of abstraction. there is a potential future where an llm with unbounded patience would have an easy time literally walking through the zig code looking for one of the footguns might miss a footgun in rust because it's abstracted away. the ones in the stdlib should give you pause. what is hiding in some third party library's code?