> Don’t get me wrong, as a Rust zealot I have my biases and still expect a memory safe implementation to be less crashy
That is a bias. You want all your "memory safety" to be guaranteed at compile time. Zig is willing to move some of that "memory safety" to run time.
Those choices involve tradeoffs. Runtime checks make Zig programs more "crashy", but the language is much smaller, the compiler is vastly faster, "debug" code isn't glacially slow, and programs can be compiled even if they might have an error.
My personal take is that if I need more abstraction than Zig, I need something with managed memory--not Rust or C++. But, that is also a bias.
I understand that I have a bias, which is why I was disclosing it. I think it strengthens my question since naively I'd expect a self-professed zealot to buy into the narrative in the blog post without questioning the data.
That is a bias. You want all your "memory safety" to be guaranteed at compile time. Zig is willing to move some of that "memory safety" to run time.
Those choices involve tradeoffs. Runtime checks make Zig programs more "crashy", but the language is much smaller, the compiler is vastly faster, "debug" code isn't glacially slow, and programs can be compiled even if they might have an error.
My personal take is that if I need more abstraction than Zig, I need something with managed memory--not Rust or C++. But, that is also a bias.