Zig creator seeks 'uncompromising perfection' before blessing 1.0

Zig is a general-purpose programming language designed to achieve C-like performance while reducing common sources of bugs. The creator built Zig after trying Go, C++, and Rust for a digital audio workstation, finding Go’s C interoperability difficult and its garbage collector caused audio delays. C++ work led to memory corruption issues that took weeks to resolve. Rust proved hard to satisfy its rules, including a month spent on font rendering. Zig was created to retain C’s power while improving C’s weaknesses. The project also maintains a no-AI policy, citing that AI contributions are consistently poor and consume code review time.

"Zig is a general-purpose language that aims to be as performant as C but with "fewer footguns," in Kelley's words. It is a niche language, at 82 on the latest RedMonk Programming Language Rankings, but well-liked by its users; last year's Stack Overflow survey has Zig as the fourth most admired language, defined as Zig developers who want to continue using the language."

"Kelley describes why he created Zig, when other options including C, C++, Rust, and Go already exist. He said he set out to develop a digital audio workstation. He tried Go, but found interoperability with C libraries difficult, and said the garbage collector caused audio delays. He tried C++, or coding C-style using a C++ compiler, but found that small mistakes led to memory corruption bugs that took weeks to fix. He tried Rust but "really struggled to write code that would satisfy Rust's rules," and spent a month trying to make font rendering work."

"Kelley's solution was to go in a different direction and create a new programming language. Zig, he said, "does not give up any of the power that C offers, while improving the flaws and weaknesses that C has." As far as we can tell, the digital audio project remains in its early stages."

"The Zig project is known for its no-AI policy, set out in the code of conduct. The reason, he said, is that AI contributions are "invariably garbage" and consume code review time that the team believes is b"

Read at theregister