> Is your claim that using Zig ends in an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs?" Wouldn't that mean that it isn't even feasible to make high-quality software with such a tool?

What caused you to hallucinate such a broad blanket statement? The point is the memory unsafety issues they ran into would be categorically impossible in safe Rust, which is why they're doing this in the first place.

It is basically Modula-2 / Object Pascal with C like syntax.

While bounds checking, improved argument passing, typed pointers, proper strings and arrays are an improvement over C, it still suffers from use after free cases.

C++ already prevents many of those scenarios, at least for those folks that don't use it as a plain Better C, and actually make use of the standard library in hardned mode. When not, naturally is as bad as C.

Also to note that the tools that Zig offers to prevent that, are also available in C and C++, but people have to actually use them, e.g. I was using Purify back in 2000's.

Then there is the whole point that Zig is not yet 1.0, and who knows what will still change until then.

It is much harder to write quality stuff in c/c++ that doesn't have memory bugs (use after free, out of bounds access, use of unitialized memory, double free, memory races, etc.). I wouldn't say it isn't feasible to build high quality software in those languages, but even the highest quality software written in those languages has these types of bugs. Zig is better than c, and maybe a little bit better than c++, especially with respect to spatial memory bugs, but it doesn't provide the same garantees as rust.

The answer is that C (and by extension Zig, C++) code goes through a hardening process. New code in these languages tends to be unsafe. But bugs and vulnerabilities get squashed over time. Bun gets updated fast and so has a lot of new unsafe code.

The statement “there exists a project where zig led to an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs” does not imply “all zig projects have an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs”.

This is a classic logic problem - eg “there is an orange cat” doesn’t imply “all cats are orange”.

> There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++

There’s a lot of leaky crap written in those languages too. One of the core promises of Rust is that the compiler will catch memory issues other languages won’t experience until runtime. If Zig doesn’t offer something similar it’ll make Rust very compelling.

> Wouldn't that mean that it isn't even feasible to make high-quality software with such a tool?

plenty of other companies/entities making high quality software in zig? tigerbeetle, zig itself for example.

Bun's entire history has been a kind of haphazard move as fast as you can story, so...

it's feasible to write good software but anything on the scale of millions of lines of code will have memory and pointer issues. I've worked in large C++ code bases with people much more experienced and skilled than I was and every single one of them would tell you that at that scale, no matter how economic and simple you program you will produce memory bugs, the smartest person in the world makes errors holding that much stuff in their head.

They're difficult to find, difficult to reason about in big software and you'll always create some. Languages that rule that out are a huge improvement in terms of correctness.