Zig: Build System Reworked

That is, I think the point was DevX not io performance.

No and yes.

If you're using Io.Threaded, then the concurrency model is multithreading and calling Future.await will block your thread on a OS futex.

If you're using Io.Evented, then the concurrency model is green threads / fibers and calling Future.await will suspend the current green thread by yielding (swapping CPU state with another fiber).

Zig currently does not support stackless coroutines so today you can't have that, but we used to have them (pre self-hosted compiler), and there's an accepted proposal to bring them back, in which case any function that calls await, or that otherwise has a suspension point, would have to be transformed into a stackless coroutine by the compiler, yes. The plan is for that to happen transparently without requiring an `async` annotation in the function signature, like we already did in the past.

This is an old post of mine that explains how that worked at a high level: https://kristoff.it/blog/zig-colorblind-async-await/

Ugh. This is something I hate about Go. I would be happy to have unused variables generate warnings, but as errors, they turn the toolchain into an adversary.

It's common for me to temporarily comment out a variable's use when developing new code, as I experiment with ideas. It's even more common when working in unfamiliar code, such as tracking down a bug or incrementally adding a new feature. It's an important part of my exploration process.

When I hit Compile at that point, I expect the compiler to build the work-in-progress exactly as it is in that moment. Executing the output allows me to spot check the snapshot's behavior against my expectations and mental model. The compile step also assures me that no syntax errors have crept in while I was focused on the logic flow or general shape of the code.

When a compiler refuses to do its job, and instead barfs up spurious errors complaining about unused variables, it brings my workflow to a screeching halt. In order to make progress, I am forced to abruptly leave my current context to visit all the different places where those variables are introduced, edit them, try again, discover that those forced edits have left more variables unused, and repeat the process until the combative compiler shuts up and does what I told it to do in the first place. By the time I'm allowed to return to what I was doing, my train of thought has been derailed, the bits of logic that I had been juggling have fallen to the ground, and my focus destroyed. And then, once I have recovered my original thoughts and seen the output of my snapshot build, I have to go back and revert all those forced edits before I can resume my work.

What an aggravating, disruptive, and completely unnecessary waste of my time and attention.

I hope Andrew has the good sense to let errors of this kind be silenced or demoted to warnings, perhaps with a compiler flag or debug build mode.

If they wanted the release build to be an error I wouldn't care. Having the current solution be "have the editor automatically change code to include or remove the underscore" is so wrong to me. Just invented a problem that needs tooling to modify source code to fix.

Andrew Kelly on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqddnwKF8HQ&t=2927s

Looks like you might be able to get rid of the error easily with annotations.

As for the language itself, it's going to be more verbose than your Python code. Cons: you'll have to spell out a lot of things that you thought were obvious assumptions. Pros: you will be able to look at a page of code and know with a great degree of certainty that there are no hidden gotchas. No monkey patching, no __init__. Basically, it just does what it says on the tin.

And finally, about the std lib and batteries: there's HTTP(S), compression algorithms, hash algorithms, RNG, I/O, the basic data structures you'd expect, JSON. Third-party libraries, if you choose not to vendor, are handled by including the repository url in a file (also automated by a CLI command), and then adding it to the build script (not automated). The `zig` command handles fetching and ensuring sanity, but otherwise assume a bit of elbow grease will need to be involved.

Some people put a generator on a tesla cybertruck and call that garage tinkering.

Some people make a go-cart out of a lawnmower and call that garage tinkering.

The first is the "batteries included Python" tinkering, the second is the "low level Zig" tinkering.

There's no other language quite like Python in this regard. Typescript is a close second, but the lack of metaprogramming facilities, no access to the type annotations at runtime, and the lack of operator overloading make some things needlessly complicated and uglier than they have any right to be.

It requires more of you in some ways, notably that you have to understand the basics of memory management and the behaviour of the stack, but so far I've found the affordances that the language provides for handling this stuff feel very intuitive.

The only sharp edges I've felt so far have been the sometimes hard to guess locations of things in the standard library, and the permenant anxiety that arises from knowing I'm going to be a few more versions behind the current release with every month that passes.

For whatever reasons I had to do it in Python. It was total nightmare to debug as the execution speed in debug mode was insanely slow.

I could've written it in C++ in exactly the same time and not to have any of the performance problems.

https://github.com/forrestthewoods/anubis/blob/983d8a1b9ea5e...

It invokes zig on a dummy C or CPP file. Then it scrapes the output looking for specific files.

C: crt1.o, libm.so, libpthread.so, libc.so, libdl.so, librt.so, libld.so, libutil.so, libresolv.so, libc_nonshared.a, libcompiler_rt.a

C++: crt1.o, libc++abi.a, libc++.a, libunwind.a, libm.so, libpthread.so, libc.so, libdl.so, librt.so, libld.so, libutil.so, libresolv.so, libc_nonshared.a, libcompiler_rt.a

Zig is also a god send in that it has all the generated glibc header bullshit for Linux.

I've got a system that is able to cross-compile ffmpeg for Linux from Windows. Which is a shockingly painful and rare capability. Linux userspace design is so so so so so bad. So embarrassingly bad.

Andrew Kelley is a damn saint for the mountains he moved for Zig. https://andrewkelley.me/post/zig-cc-powerful-drop-in-replace...

Now I just wish some of this capability was exposed in a slightly more formal capacity so that it could be leveraged by the broader community :)

It sounds like you are a strong candidate to try out the new improvements mentioned in this devlog and see what benefits you can get for yourself.

> if (2 * 2 != 5) { @panic("fail"); }

> And running `zig test file.zig -OReleaseSafe` takes a couple seconds on my computer.

What kind of computer are you on? I just ran that test (latest master build, first run):

   ~ % time zig test file.zig -OReleaseSafe
   file.zig:1:17: error: expected type expression, found '{'
   if (2 * 2 != 5) { @panic("fail"); }
                ^
   zig test file.zig -OReleaseSafe  0.03s user 0.44s system 505% cpu 0.094 total

This kind of thing just feels unacceptable considering I don't really see ANY improvement on the issues I had from back then.

Also had a similar baffling experience when I last tried to come back to writing Zig. The std.time.Instant or similar API that also exists in rust and most other languages was move to the new Io interface and they also completely removed that std.time.Instant code.

Overall it feels like people developing the tool don't respect the people using the tool. C++ or even Rust are much less enjoyable languages to write compared to Zig so it is really sad that it is not possible to actually use Zig for me.

Closing your eyes and pretending a problem does not exist is the a good solution. The fact of the matter is one of the biggest projects that used Zig thought that the devX was so bad that they opted to rewrite their entire 1M LOC project into a different language. This is a nightmare scenario for most companies, and will motivate similar sized companies/project to pick another language that will not require this than to risk using Zig. Also, Zig’s flippant attitude about Bun’s request (among other viewpoints) only further adds to why bigger projects would want to stay away from Zig.

For comparison, while Rust offers a very rich string library, it's also very strict about what you can/cannot do with strings, so if your use case falls outside of that you're out of luck. With Zig, you can pretty easily roll your own and make it do what you want. (and when Zig is post 1.0, I imagine there will be some very nice pre-made string libraries by the community etc.)

In C you have pain. Does the caller allocate a buffer? How does it know how big to make it? Do you have to have separate calls to calculate the required length? Etc. Can Zig work like Rust/C++ and not like C? My impression is that it can't.