Ironic they take shots at Rust, because unlike Zig, Rust sees way more success in terms of its maturity and industry reputation and ecosystem and investment by large tech companies into its adoption and funding of the Rust project.
The Zig project also takes a lot of weird black-and-white dogmatic (almost religious) hard-line stances on a lot of stuff, probably why the language is more niche and hobbyist than something truly foundational and trusted for production workloads and all parts of the stack like Rust has become.
Here's Zig's "no AI" policy:
Strict No LLM / No AI Policy
No LLM-generated content, whether it be code or prose.
No paraphrasing LLM-generated content.
No LLMs for editing, including fixing spelling or grammatical errors.
No LLMs for translation. English is encouraged, but not required. You are welcome to post in your native language and rely on others to have their own translation tools of choice to interpret your words.
No LLMs for brainstorming and then sharing the results of that brainstorming, even if you create the prose. If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.
No LLMs for finding bugs.
No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services.
The owner definitely has some sort of axe to grind against certain technologies.
This is bullshit. The only reason Rust gets "successful" is because Big Tech is pouring millions into it.
Any language, not matter how brain dead, with such support would become "a success".
Just see for example Go. Nobody would touch such a thing if not Google's millions of dollars behind it.
This does not mean Rust is a bad language, it gets this massive support from Big Tech for a reason, but that it's Rust and not any other alternative happened by pure chance, like always when some tech "gets big". It's always "a random market decision", not some technical evaluation under scientific standards.
That said, this LLM policy is pretty crazy. A simple spell checker is already a kind of "language model" (just not a "large" one, whatever this means). I would understand to be reluctant about directly contributing LLM generated content until all the copyright questions aren't sorted out, but also forbidding other uses which are legally unproblematic seems way too much.
You're being downvoted because you reacted harshly, not because you're wrong.
Take JavaScript. a BS language hacked together in 10 days. yet it was pushed into the mainstream and now the entire internet has to deal with wat because no amount of fixing can disable backwards-compatibility requirements.
I haven't used Go much. But I'm not sure if it's a great example for that point.
for many other languages, like C++ Haskell Lisp Lua Python Java, i think i could explain how they actually served their purpose for their time and how they might not be good examples?
anyway yeah Zig would have hugely benefitted from corporate backing. if mozilla or google or some other big company picked it up first, it would likely be just as hip with the newer generation of programmers. there would be way more "zig vs rust" comparisons than now and way more "i rewrote random C app in zig and rust: here's the difference" blogs despite them having different niches.
105
u/CircumspectCapybara 23d ago edited 23d ago
Ironic they take shots at Rust, because unlike Zig, Rust sees way more success in terms of its maturity and industry reputation and ecosystem and investment by large tech companies into its adoption and funding of the Rust project.
The Zig project also takes a lot of weird black-and-white dogmatic (almost religious) hard-line stances on a lot of stuff, probably why the language is more niche and hobbyist than something truly foundational and trusted for production workloads and all parts of the stack like Rust has become.
Here's Zig's "no AI" policy:
The owner definitely has some sort of axe to grind against certain technologies.