alt Hacker News> That's a strange expression given that the percentage of programs written in languages that rely primarily on a GC for memory management has been rising steadily for about 30 years
I wish I knew what you mean by programs relying primarily on GC. Does that include Rust?
Regardless, but extrapolating current PL trends so far is a fools errand. I'm not looking at current social/market trends but limits of physics and hardware.
> There's nothing related here. We were talking about how Zig's design could assist in code reviews and testing
No, let me remind you:
> > [snip] Rust defends you from common mistakes, but overall for similar codebases you see fewer bugs.
> I understand that's something you believe, but it's not supported empirically we were talking how not having to worry about UB allows for easier defect catching.
> Compared to C++.
Overall, I think using C++ with all of its modern features should be in the ballpark of safe/fast as Zig, with Zig having a better compile time. Even if it isn't a 1-to-1 comparison with Zig, we have other examples like Bun vs Deno, where Bun incurs more segfaults (per issue).
Also don't see how much of Zig design could really assist code reviews and testing.
> Does that include Rust?
No. Most memory management in Rust is not through it's GC, even though most Rust programs do use the GC to some extent.
> I'm not looking at current social/market trends but limits of physics and hardware.
The laws of physics absolutely do not predict that the relative cost of CPU to RAM will decrease substantially. Unforeseen economic events may always happen, but they are unforeseen. It's always possible that current trends would reverse, but that's a different matter from assuming they are likely to reverse.
> Overall, I think using C++ with all of its modern features should be in the ballpark of safe/fast as Zig, with Zig having a better compile time.
I don't know how reasonable it is to think that. If Rust's value comes from eliminating spatial and temporal memory safety issues, surely there's value in eliminating the more dangerous of the two, which Zig does as well as Rust (but C++ doesn't).
But even if you think that's reasonable for some reason, I think it's at least as reasonable to think the opposite, given that in almost 30 years of programming in C++, by far my biggest issue with the language has been its complexity and implicitness, and Zig fixes both. Given how radically different Zig is from C++, my preferenece for Zig stems precisely from it solving what is, to me, the biggest issue with C++.
> Also don't see how much of Zig design could really assist code reviews and testing.
Because it's both explicit and simple. There are no hidden operations performed by a routine that do not appear in that routine's code. In C++ (or Rust), to know whether there's some hidden call to a destructor/trait, you have to examine all the types involved (to make matters worse, some of them may be inferred).