docs.wyzer-lang.org doesn't resolve for me, and it's prominently linked from https://wyzer-lang.vercel.app/. Since I'm not familiar with wyzer or perceus, how would one write, say, a doubly linked list in wyzer?
Great. I'm also writing a new language with the same memory management idea (Perceus-style reference counting / ownership). My language [1] is not functional and currently lacks multi-threading and networking, so there are big differences. But I really like the moto "easy to use memory safety without tracing GC".
maybe wait until you have something to share before Show HN? overall your work seems like a cool thing that i’d like to look at in a few months once there’s more substantial education stuff to read about it.
> I was not aware of the antagonism from the Zig .. people to Rust, but it makes absolutely no sense.
Lol, have you ever watch Andrew Kelley speak? I've only seen 3 or 4 talks he's given, but he frequently makes not-so-subtle digs towards Rust. Zig's home page prominently displays "Focus on debugging your application rather than debugging your programming language knowledge" which sounds horrible to me, but is clearly an anti-rust statement. Competition is good, and Rust and Zig cater to different people, but when the primary personality behind Zig is leads the way, it shouldn't be a surprise that some tribalism-influenced followers lean hard into it.
> "Focus on debugging your application rather than debugging your programming language knowledge"
This sounds like it's made by someone who fears discovering they don't know something more than discovering they made a mistake.
I am the reverse: I would prefer to debug my programming language knowledge over debugging my application. I hate debugging applications specifically because making a mistake is SO much worse to me than discovering there is a fact I didn't know yet.
And, of course, debugging your application is discovering there are unknown unknowns in deployment, the worst of the quadrant of knowns and unknowns.
“Focus on debugging your application rather than debugging your programming language knowledge” to me sounds like it is directed primarily at C and C++., it’s a much more direct translation.
I don't see how that's possible. It's clearly stating that zig is not in the static (compile-time) safety checking camp. The message is, don't ensure correctness at compile-time, find your errors in the debugger. C++ doesn't force you to use RAII. C has nothing of the sort. Only Rust (of the major, currently fashionable languages) has a borrow checker that has a well-deserved reputation for having a steep learning curve, and no easy way around.
I'm pretty sure he's just finding the most condescending way he can think of to "correct" people who have a lower tolerance for paper cuts than he has.
The author's message is really "You idiots that can't just ignore the friction you can't fix, and change your habits and workflows to match what the corporate overlords know you really need should just STFU with your tips and tricks for how to customize your power tools, because I don't do that, so why should you?"
They may not right now, but the whole point of Microsoft's Copilot+ PC standard (even though it's somewhat anemic) is to run models locally. Apple Silicon with enough unified memory is capable. Not to mention modern iPhones and Pixels have fairly capable NPUs and routinely run local models. So, we may not be to the point where most normal people have the hardware to run local models, but it is rapidly approaching.
