Zig's comptime is powerful but has limitations. It's not a general-purpose Turing-complete language. It cannot perform arbitrary I/O operations like reading files or making network requests. Loop bounds and recursion depth must be known at compile time, preventing dynamic computations based on runtime data. While it can generate code, it can't introspect or modify existing code, meaning no macros in the traditional C/C++ sense. Finally, comptime doesn't fully eliminate runtime overhead; some checks and operations might still occur at runtime, especially when interacting with non-comptime code. Essentially, comptime excels at manipulating data and generating code based on compile-time constants, but it's not a substitute for a fully-fledged scripting language embedded within the compiler.
Zack is a lightweight and simple backtesting engine written in Zig. Designed for clarity and ease of use, it emphasizes a straightforward API and avoids external dependencies. It's geared towards individual traders and researchers who prioritize understanding and modifying their backtesting logic. Zack loads historical market data, applies user-defined trading strategies coded in Zig, and provides performance metrics. While basic in its current form, the project aims to be educational and easily extensible, serving as a foundation for building more complex backtesting tools.
HN commenters generally praised Zack's simplicity and the choice of Zig as its implementation language. Several noted Zig's growing popularity for performance-sensitive tasks and appreciated the project's clear documentation and ease of use. Some discussed the benefits of using a compiled language like Zig for backtesting compared to interpreted languages like Python, highlighting potential performance gains. Others offered suggestions for improvements, such as adding support for more complex trading strategies and integrating with different data sources. A few commenters also expressed interest in exploring Zig further due to this project.
This blog post details how to create a statically linked Go executable that utilizes C code, overcoming the challenges typically associated with CGO and external dependencies. The author leverages Zig as a build system and cross-compiler, using its ability to compile C code and link it directly into a Go-compatible archive. This approach eliminates the need for a system C toolchain on the target machine during deployment, producing a truly self-contained binary. The post provides a practical example, guiding the reader through the necessary Zig build script configuration and explaining the underlying principles. This allows for simplified deployment, particularly useful for environments like scratch Docker containers, and offers a more robust and reproducible build process.
Hacker News users discuss the clever use of Zig as a build tool to statically link C dependencies for Go programs, effectively bypassing the complexities of cgo and resulting in self-contained binaries. Several commenters praise the approach for its elegance and practicality, particularly for cross-compilation scenarios. Some express concern about the potential fragility of relying on undocumented Go internals, while others highlight the ongoing efforts within the Go community to address static linking natively. A few users suggest alternative solutions like using Docker for consistent build environments or exploring fully statically-linked C libraries. The overall sentiment is positive, with many appreciating the ingenuity and potential of this Zig-based workaround.
Crabtime brings Zig's comptime functionality to Rust, enabling evaluation of functions and expressions at compile time. It utilizes a procedural macro to transform annotated Rust code into a syntax tree that can be executed during compilation. This allows for computations, including string manipulation, type construction, and resource embedding, to be performed at compile time, leading to improved runtime performance and reduced binary size. Crabtime is still early in its development but aims to provide a powerful mechanism for compile-time metaprogramming in Rust.
HN commenters discuss crabtime, a library bringing Zig's comptime functionality to Rust. Several express excitement about the potential for metaprogramming and compile-time code generation, viewing it as a way to achieve greater performance and flexibility. Some raise concerns about the complexity and potential misuse of such powerful features, comparing it to template metaprogramming in C++. Others question the practical benefits and wonder if the added complexity is justified. The potential for compile times to increase significantly is also mentioned as a drawback. A few commenters suggest alternative approaches, like using build scripts or procedural macros, though the author clarifies that crabtime aims to offer something distinct. The overall sentiment seems to be cautious optimism, with many intrigued by the possibilities but also aware of the potential pitfalls.
This video demonstrates the incredibly fast incremental compilation of the Zig self-hosted compiler. By making a small, seemingly insignificant change to a source file within the compiler's codebase and rebuilding, the video showcases a rebuild time of just around 25 milliseconds. This highlights Zig's efficient build system and its focus on fast iteration times, a key advantage for developer productivity.
Hacker News users generally praised the Zig compiler's fast incremental compilation demonstrated in the video. Several commenters highlighted the impressive speed and how it contributes to a positive developer experience. Some pointed out that while the demo is compelling, real-world project builds with dependencies might not be as instantaneous. Others discussed the potential of Zig's self-hosting capability and build system, comparing it favorably to other languages and build tools. A few users also expressed interest in Zig's memory management and safety features. There was some discussion about the practical limitations of incremental compilation and the importance of understanding its inner workings.
In Zig, a Writer is essentially a way to abstract writing data to various destinations. It's not a specific type, but rather an interface defined by a set of functions (like writeAll, writeByte, etc.) that any type can implement. This allows for flexible output handling, as code can be written to work with any Writer regardless of whether it targets a file, standard output, network socket, or an in-memory buffer. By passing a Writer instance to a function, you decouple data production from the specific output destination, promoting reusability and testability. This approach simplifies code by unifying the way data is written across different contexts.
Hacker News users discuss the benefits and drawbacks of Zig's Writer abstraction. Several commenters appreciate the explicit error handling and composability it offers, contrasting it favorably to C's FILE pointer and noting the difficulties of properly handling errors with the latter. Some questioned the ergonomics and verbosity, suggesting that try might be preferable to explicit if checks for every write operation. Others highlight the power of Writer for building complex, layered I/O operations and appreciate its generality, enabling writing to diverse destinations like files, network sockets, and in-memory buffers. The lack of implicit flushing is mentioned, with commenters acknowledging the tradeoffs between explicit control and potential performance impacts. Overall, the discussion revolves around the balance between explicitness, control, and ease of use provided by Zig's Writer.
Lightpanda is an open-source, headless browser written in Zig. It aims to be a fast, lightweight, and embeddable alternative to existing headless browser solutions. Its features include support for the Chrome DevTools Protocol, allowing for debugging and automation, and a focus on performance and security. The project is still under active development but aims to provide a robust and efficient platform for web scraping, testing, and other headless browser use cases.
Hacker News users discussed Lightpanda's potential, praising its use of Zig for performance and memory safety. Several commenters expressed interest in its headless browsing capabilities for tasks like web scraping and automation. Some questioned its current maturity and the practical advantages over existing headless browser solutions like Playwright. The discussion also touched on the complexities of browser development, particularly rendering, and the potential benefits of Zig's simpler concurrency model. One commenter highlighted the project's clever use of a shared memory arena for communication between the browser and application. Concerns were raised about the potential difficulty of maintaining a full browser engine, and some users suggested focusing on a niche use case instead of competing directly with established browsers.
Summary of Comments ( 160 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43744591
HN commenters largely agree with the author's points about the limitations of Zig's
comptime, acknowledging that it's not a general-purpose Turing-complete language. Several discuss the tradeoffs involved in compile-time execution, citing debugging difficulty and compile times as potential downsides. Some suggest that aiming for Turing completeness at compile time is not necessarily desirable and praise Zig's pragmatic approach. One commenter points out thatcomptimeis still very powerful, highlighting its ability to generate optimized code based on input parameters, which allows for things like custom allocators and specialized data structures. Others discuss alternative approaches, such as using build scripts, and how Zig's features complement those methods. A few commenters express interest in seeing how Zig evolves and whether future versions might address some of the current limitations.The Hacker News post "Things Zig comptime won't do" has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters offering their perspectives on the article's points and the nature of Zig's
comptimefeature.Several commenters discuss the trade-offs inherent in Zig's design. One points out that the limitations of
comptimeare a deliberate choice, contrasting it with C++'s templates, which are Turing-complete and thus capable of much more, but at the cost of greater complexity and often inscrutable error messages. They argue that Zig's approach prioritizes simpler mental model and easier debugging. Another commenter elaborates on this by highlighting the difference between compile-time execution (which Zig does) and compile-time code generation (which C++ templates enable).Another thread of discussion centers around reflection and code generation. The author of the original article states that
comptimedoes not currently offer robust reflection capabilities, limiting its potential for generating code dynamically. A commenter suggests that the "comptime is not a code generator" position in the article feels like a moving target, citing recent additions to Zig'scomptimecapabilities. Another commenter agrees, pointing out that macros and procedural macros are planned additions that could expandcomptime's power.One commenter suggests that the article's complaints might not be as significant as they appear. They argue that many of the use cases mentioned, such as static polymorphism through traits, can be achieved through other means within Zig, even if not directly through
comptime.The discussion also touches upon the specific examples presented in the article. One commenter questions the practicality of the "generic map" example, suggesting it's a contrived scenario. Another commenter delves into the example concerning statically sized arrays, offering an alternative solution using
std.ArrayListthat avoids the need for complexcomptimemanipulation.Finally, a few comments compare Zig to other languages, particularly C++ and Rust. One commenter notes the differences in compile-time metaprogramming capabilities between Zig and C++, reinforcing the point about Zig's focus on simplicity. Another commenter discusses how Rust's trait system, while powerful, can lead to complex error messages and compilation times, similar to C++ templates. They suggest that Zig's more constrained approach might be preferable in some cases.
In summary, the comments on Hacker News reflect a nuanced understanding of Zig's
comptimeand its limitations. The discussion is generally supportive of Zig's design choices, recognizing the trade-offs between power and complexity. While some commenters point out potential areas for improvement or alternative solutions, the overall sentiment seems to be that Zig's approach is valuable for its simplicity and predictability.