alt Hacker News> In contrast, you can’t really parse a file in Rust. Rust macros generate new source code, so parsing can’t be finished until all the macros are expanded.
Rust needs macros because the language is extremely strict and verbose. Macros are the main escape hatch, allowing you to simplify your code while maintaining memory safety without a GC.
Zig doesn't have memory safety as a goal so it seems like an unfair comparison.
Replies
Macros in Rust have nothing to do with memory safety. They're typically used for compile-time codegen (derive, println!) and very occasionally for syntactic abstraction (vec!).
This makes no sense at all.
The "comparison" (it isn't one--it's a technical point; "fairness" is not remotely relevant--Rust isn't being attacked and doesn't need defending) is between a language with macros and a language without macros--why the languages have or don't have macros isn't relevant.
Zig is strict and verbose and could benefit from macros but for numerous reasons doesn't have them.
Zig also has no GC and does have memory safety as a goal (but not the primary one, and not provable memory safety)--but none of this is at all relevant to the point the OP made, which is strictly about one language having macros and the other language not having them.
I'm a Rust main, but this argument seems... incorrect? You would not need macros for Rust to remain a usable memory-safe language. They certainly make it easier, but they're not necessary. It would be perfectly possible to design a variant of Rust that gets you to 80-90% of Rust's usability, with the same safety, without macros.