1. 18
    1. 7

      zig cc is a great tool and even if I didn’t ever use zig for anything else I would probably continue to use it

      I have cross-compiled c/c++/rust and go all pretty painlessly using zig cc

      1. 1

        Seems like a distribution/packaging solution for clang that happens to be written in zig. Not sure they need to be combined into the zig programming language at all.

        1. 6

          The build system is implemented in Zig, requires you to write Zig, and it’s another important component. From there you have a long series of improvements in Zig when it comes to using C libraries.

          This video has a good recap of the various ways in which Zig is better than C at using C libraries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g

          More in general we’re seeing more adoption of Zig as a build system than as a language simply because that’s both the most stable part of the toolchain and because it’s the expected starting point. While it’s obviously not guaranteed that the language will take off, the current state of affairs is what you would expect to see also in the success scenario.

        2. 5

          It doesn’t have to be. Zig just did the work needed to package the compiler and libc it properly for all platforms, instead of continuing the tradition of saying “it’s not my problem” and pointing at somebody else.