alt Hacker NewsIME Zig's breaking changes are quite manageable for a lot of application types since most of the breakage these days happens in the stdlib and not in the language. And if you just want do read and write files, the highlevel file-io interfaces are nearly identical, they just moved to a different namespace and now require a std.Io pointer to be passed in.
And tbh, I take a 'living' language any day over a language that's ossified because of strict backward compatibility requirements. When updating a 3rd-party dependency to a new major version it's also expected that the code needs to be fixed (except in Zig those breaking changes are in the minor versions, but for 0.x that's also expected).
I actually hope that even after 1.x, Zig will have a strategy to keep the stdlib lean by aggressively removing deprecated interfaces (maybe via separate stdlib interface versions, e.g. `const std = @import("std/v1");`, those versions could be slim compatibility wrappers around a single core stdlib implementation.
Replies
Sure, but considering that Zig is a modern C alternative, one should not and cannot afford to forget that C has been successful also because it stayed small and consistent for so long.
The entire C, C ABI and standard lib specs, combined, are probably less words than the Promise spec from ECMAScript 262.
A small language that stays consistent and predictable lets developers evolve it in best practices, patterns, design choices, tooling. C has achieved all that.
No evolving language has anywhere near that freedom.
I don't want an ever evolving Zig too for what is worth. And I like Zig.
I don't think any developer can resolve all of the design tensions a programming language has, you can't make it ergonomic on its own.
But a small, modern, stable C would still be welcome, besides Odin.
> I take a 'living' language any day over of a language that's ossified because of strict backward compatibility requirements
Maybe you would, but >95% of serious projects wouldn't. The typical lifetime of a codebase intended for a lasting application is over 15 or 20 years (in industrial control or aerospace, where low-level languages are commonly used, codebases typically last for over 30 years), and while such changes are manageable early on, they become less so over time.
You say "strict" as if it were out of some kind of stubborn princple, where in fact backward compatibility is one of the things people who write "serious" software want most. Backward compatibility is so popular that at some point it's hard to find any feature that is in high-enough demand to justify breaking it. Even in established languages there's always a group of people who want somethng badly enough they don't mind breaking compatibility for it, but they're almost always a rather small minority. Furthermore, a good record of preserving compatibility in the past makes a language more attractive even for greenfield projects written by people who care about backward compatibility, who, in "serious" software, make up the majority. When you pick a language for such a project, the expectation of how the language will evolve over the next 20 years is a major concern on day one (a startup might not care, but most such software is not written by startups).