λzydUpdate on Zig thus far: I detest syntax and non-interactive development.
I continue on though.
Also realizing that if I start working with languages outside of Lisps, I'm gonna need modal editing. With Lisps I basically get modal editing (via lispy) but the switch between command and insert mode is implicit: when the point/cursor is on an s-expression you're in command mode, when inside an expression you're in insert mode. Without s-expressions you don't get such modality for free.
Huubje@zyd coming from vim I used to think I needed modal editting too but didn't really. More modifier keys however.
@zyd how's Zig by the way? Been wanting to look into that if I find the time/focus/energy
@Huubje I've only been using Zig for like ~48hrs so no real opinions yet. Like my past attempts at non-interactive, non-lisp languages, I'm wondering why I'd ever use Zig. I guess it's nice from a learning/experimentation perspective to use something which is more hands on with types and memory allocation, but then I think: well, if I'm gonna do that, might as well just pick up an assembler.
Not sure where a language like Zig really fits in for me. I'm just dabbling. Admittedly I'm only giving it a shot because I appreciate Andrew Kelley's anti-llm position and that he made that official policy for Zig.
@zyd I was wondering because languages that are narrow but deep seem more enjoyable to me, and Zig seems like it fits that bill. They seem like they have a clear goal in mind with the language.
@Huubje Zig seems really focused on its mission: C without footguns. Mind you I'm not hating on Zig at all, I'm just unsure where it fits with my personal use cases (e.g I imagine it makes writing extremely performant games much easier, but I don't know if it'd be enjoyable to make games in a static language)