audunw4 hours ago
Would recommend checking out the Zig state of the (tagged) union as well.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
saghm4 hours ago
> It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
idle_zealot3 hours ago
> Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
xdavidliu3 hours ago
> It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
or substantially worse: "<chat transcript dump>"
kingcauchy2 hours ago
Human reproductions are notoriously error prone whether ai assisted or not right? I’m not sure what the analogy is between “llms are error prone” and “thoughtlessly copy-pasting something from Claude” is.
dwatttttan hour ago
Human reproductions don't have to be bad. It feels just as justified to push back on a bad bug report whether human or AI and say "I don't have enough to go on here".
If a report is improved and becomes actionable, that's great.
tech_hutchan hour ago
Hey, we're all the result of human reproductions.
kingcauchyan hour ago
Might be my favorite comment ever now.
manwe1502 hours ago
I feel very torn as a maintainer on this, since the only way to respond to the increased noise from AI has been to have AI do the research for me to extract all the links and line numbers I used to have to find by hand to explain why the PR needs more effort to be completed. But I also will be highly dismissive of any submitter who just posts AI text without cleaning it up first. It feels hypocritical, but the alternative is that I just can’t respond to most people instead due to limited bandwidth. I mark if something comes directly from the LLM though and to try to express my degree of confidence in its claims.
dnautics25 minutes ago
> Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
In the state of the tagged video he says still not accepting AI submissions until a certain set of preconditions is met. So... No?
B4uler5an hour ago
He specifically says in that presentation that they are open to LLMs helping them get to bug free, but because the language is still in flux, they would rather prioritise bugs users actually find rather than those found by LLMs, essentially with the intent of unblocking people rather than wasting time fixing things that may need to be fixed again or be wasted work come the next update.
itishappy3 hours ago
Shouldn't everybody already know that while using AI to find bugs for oneself is amazingly efficient, using AI to submit bug reports for others is quite the opposite? Burden of verification and all.
dev-in2 hours ago
Exactly, the main issue isn't the LLM creating or confirming the report. Rather, the maintainer has no idea how it was prompted, and the results may be completely wrong. Some LLMs also have a bad habit of trying to please the user, confirming their biases.
mjburgess4 hours ago
There's a difference between Opus 4.5 and Astra 6
f33d51733 hours ago
With regards to whether when it finds a legitimate bug, it should be given weight?
mjburgess3 hours ago
With regards to whether a blanket ban has a payoff
throwaway274482 hours ago
Why would the difference matter? A bug report is valid or it isn't.
manwe1502 hours ago
A lot of bug reports aren’t valid, or handle a case that can’t realistically happen or realistically be handled (eg what do you do if you detect a crash while the prior crash is crashing and the logging pipe is throwing errors)
throwaway274482 hours ago
Sure but this is true regardless of the model. Either it found a bug or it didn't—who cares about the intermediary steps or tools used so long as the reporter can reproduce it?
physicallyIllfr3 hours ago
[dead]
vitaminCPP3 hours ago
citation needed
nelox3 hours ago
[flagged]
mwkaufma3 hours ago
Warming up to LLMS... explicitly _after_ full branch-coverage and fuzzing.
gre2 hours ago
He'll reevaluate the LLM bug-finding situation in a few years.
fukaiall3 hours ago
I personally think using AI is of no problem for certain cases. It is absolutely pissing off when someone tries to generate slops that too verbose to review only to increase the complexity of the codebase meaninglessly.
kasajian3 hours ago
[flagged]
tinfoilhatter3 hours ago
It boggles the mind that people believe anyone that thinks differently from them is automatically utterly stupid.
Actually, on second thought, it really doesn't. Indoctrination and herd mentality are quite the things.
ubavic2 hours ago
I’ve written software for a living in JS, C, Pascal, and Go, and I’ve tried many, many more languages. After working on a project in Zig for a year, I’m convinced that Zig is the best-designed language I’ve tried so far. Haskell comes close. At least, it’s the best-designed language for humans.
It’s not for everyone yet. It’s still unstable, and its ecosystem is small. However, both are improving.
itishappyan hour ago
I'd like to learn more about the connection between Zig and Haskell as they seem almost opposite in design and philosophy. I'm pretty sure you just meant they're both "good languages" but if there are parallels I'm missing I'd love to know!
creataan hour ago
I'm not the person you asked, but I see them both as languages that try to get a lot of mileage out of a few features. Both of them try to have small cores, instead of taking a "maximalist" approach like C++.
dnautics23 minutes ago
I mean. Zig is a really freaking good language for LLMs (in my hands) too
vikrantrathorean hour ago
Congratulations to zig team. Good to know they are trying pragmatic approach to LLM now. I left the zig eco-system due to zig core members hostile behaviour toward humans not just LLM, so good to see the change they are becoming pragmatic. For me I am slowly porting the same work to odin language [1].
Background is I created issue and one pull request to fix them in zig compiler version 0.16.1 issue numbers 36812, 36811 (you cannot access them as my account is banned can see my fork at [2]). Respecting the community’s no AI stand. For these specific issues I wrote the issue and code myself and not let AI write it. Spend a lot of time on it. Subsequently without any notice my account was banned because my projects on github using zig uses LLM. This was done without message or any information. My account was banned on zig repository.
I can now understand the other side of coin how bun team might have been treated with disdain when they used LLM.
I wrote an email and left the zig community, have many work in zig but slowly moving them to odin.
I feel personal disdain should not be spilled on to people who are pragmatic on using LLM. I was a very big evangelist of zig for their no LLM stand and promoted them among my community, but with poor treatment by community I just left. You can still see projects I wrote in zig [3].
I have worked with postgreql community since 1997 and python community since 1998. Never felt such hostile community. So all the best and I wish zig continue its progress
[1] https://github.com/insanai/sqlodin
alexrp14 minutes ago
> because my projects on github using zig uses LLM
To be clear, we do not block people for merely having LLM-related projects. Obviously we have opinions about LLMs in a broader context, but in terms of rules enforcement, we only care about LLM usage taking place within official Zig spaces.
It's possible you were blocked in error. LLM detection is not foolproof, so unless it's an open-and-shut case, our usual approach is to just unblock if people reach out to us by email.
dnautics21 minutes ago
I don't think the zig community is necessarily hostile to LLMs, they just don't want it in their "maintained by 10-ish core people not even full time" language impl. Mitchell Hashimoto, a big zig contributor (both money and effort), for example, uses LLMs a lot and no particular shade is thrown.
vikrantrathore6 minutes ago
This is from my own first hand experience both on ziggit forums as well as raising bugs in zig repository. My account on codeberg is still banned on zig repository without any single comment, my issues or pull request raised on that project just went in ether without being accessible, if you see the issue yourself could have made the decision if it was warranted to ban the account, but that right also taken by the core contributor out of spite and disdain for LLM.
I have been in open source world with linux kernel since 1992, never every had seen a community so hostile, especially towards humans who spend time and efforts just out of curiosity, inquisitiveness and trying to support some simple alternative when odds are already against them.
Facing hostile behavior from inside the community made me switch to odin language where they also do not use LLM but are pragmatic about people using it. Cannot comment on Mitchell because I do not contribute with money.
vitaminCPP3 hours ago
I'm always impressed by Zig's targets support. I'm starting to think that it might be the only language that competes with C on this regard.
I'm looking forward to see what the new build integration can unlock on the tooling side.
What I'm looking for the most for the next release(s):
- New stackless coroutine IO implementation
- First class fuzzer tooling
ivanjermakovan hour ago
> competes with C
Outcompetes C even? I'm especially exited for SpirV. Would be great to use Zig for both CPU and GPU programming.
Especially in WebGPU, where WGSL tooling is very early.
jabedude4 hours ago
How is Zig doing as a project? I remember they took a hard line against AI
agentultra4 hours ago
They seem to be doing fine. Tigerbeetle and Ghostty are two projects that continue to do well and are written in Zig. The foundation’s funding also seems to be doing well. They are continuing to make releases.
triyambakam2 hours ago
Ghostty is a strange example though because Mitchell is very keen on agentic engineering.
B4uler5an hour ago
Strange in what way? Mitchell has also stated that he reviews every line of code that goes into Ghostty so I don't think its quite the same as the Bun rewrite.
abc424 hours ago
It looks like they're spending 5 months what should be a 1 month job these days.
onlyrealcuzzo4 hours ago
Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
bendmorris4 hours ago
Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you?
giancarlostoro3 hours ago
Reading their comment it sounds like they wanted to confirm the bug existed with AI, not sure they ever said they had AI write the code. Why have such a dumb policy?
unclad59684 hours ago
It's a violation of project rules to confirm bugs with AI?
bendmorris4 hours ago
Read it yourself: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/
sigmar4 hours ago
>If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.
>No LLMs for finding bugs.
>No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a cult that bans dissent
B4uler5an hour ago
The things you've quoted and your conclusion feel at odds. They just don't want AI contributions, and they, like a lot of the world, are bored of hearing about AI. Is it really too much to ask?
tolerance3 hours ago
> The Zig community is decentralized. Anyone is free to start and maintain their own community, which is not subject to these rules.
ternaryoperator2 hours ago
The second part affirms that it is centralized. There is nothing wrong with that except saying that because you can leave the community and go elsewhere, it is ipso facto decentralized.
tolerancean hour ago
I figure they're either using a loose interpretation of "decentralized" or an honest interpretation of "community".
alexrp4 hours ago
For the record, there isn't even uniformity of thought on LLMs within the core team, let alone the broader Zig community.
sigmar3 hours ago
If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.
alexrp3 hours ago
> If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
To clarify, do you mean someone who isn't part of the core team?
kingcauchy2 hours ago
Interesting to hear! We maintain the project Antfly (entirely zig) and have been nervous about bringing issues to the zig folks or asking questions because of our ai usage.
We’re quite knowledgeable and thoughtful folks fwiw
I think I’ve seen you are a core team member or contributor? I remember your tag?
alexrpan hour ago
We simply ask that Zig bug reports be written by humans, for humans. Whether you use LLMs on your project is immaterial to us.
Yes, I'm a core team member.
kingcauchyan hour ago
Thanks for the clarification here!
So for instance because of the size of our codebase our project has pushed Zig to some of the edges, specifically we end up hitting a bug when using llvm and zig on arm64 (Mac and Linux) where it seems to be caused by some configuration Zig passes through to LLVM. I’ve used codex and claude to help me diagnose and find the bug (we use nix’s glibc zig to circumvent the problem now). I now understand the root cause but am not sure what the proper fix would be. But I’ve not known whether or not even raising the issue would break the terms of contributing? Would raising the issue break the implicit agreement?
kingcauchy2 hours ago
I’ve not found the zig folks to ban dissent, they engage in a lot of thoughtful dialog. Just because they’ve made a different decision for how they take contributions than other people agree with doesn’t make them a cult?
jibalt4 hours ago
Yes ... pretty damn stupid.
cabaalis3 hours ago
"NO LLMs for finding bugs" is easier written as "Don't use the tools your adversaries will"
I've written code a long time and that's probably the dumbest rule I've seen.
saghm4 hours ago
Pointing out something that is not good doesn't require surprise at the fact that it happened
phoghed4 hours ago
Yeah, the maintainers of a DOA hobby project should certainly be allowed to run it however they want imo
miki1232112 hours ago
That's honestly my biggest problem with Zig.
It's clearly a hobby project (constant breakages, the maintainer getting into politics, rejecting some safety mechanisms, the anti-LLM crusade, a strange focus on esoteric targets with little to no commercial significance), but the maintainer does not admit that it is a hobby project.
It makes me respect the Rust community even more.
IshKebab4 hours ago
Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
bendmorris4 hours ago
Claude Code has 13.4k open bugs: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues
Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them.
esafak4 hours ago
Some have both, despite using an auto-close bot! OC is at 4.6K open and 24K closed issues. https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues
audunw4 hours ago
They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
csande177 minutes ago
He sees the value of using LLMs... only after performing NASA-level verification and fully comprehensive fuzzing using traditional tools. Since Zig has not done those things, LLM-generated bugs are still banned.
saghm4 hours ago
Ah, so yet another language in the long line of "I'm smart enough to use this but you the user are not"
unleaded3 hours ago
Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult.
Capricorn24812 hours ago
This is because they got so many shit admissions from people using LLMs they were wasting time reviewing them.
acedTrex4 hours ago
The popular LLM projects have infinitely many more bugs than the zig project does this is a ridiculous message.
0c3ca833 hours ago
If it's generating detectably incorrect code, why do you need an LLM to tell you it's a bug?
onlyrealcuzzo2 hours ago
Encountering something that seems incorrect, and proving something is a bug and not just YOUR user error, AND reproducing it minimally - turns out to not be easy when it's a low-level compiler issue, and YOU'RE not an expert, especially when it relates to Dwarf tables...
Typically, any time you think you've found a compiler error, you're using it wrong...
nvme0n1p12 hours ago
If it's a real bug, you can just report what you know and leave it at that. You don't need to embellish it with random guesses about a root cause.
Okay: "I compile this input and the linker crashes."
Not okay: "I compile this input and the linker crashes. Also here's 10 paragraphs of slop about dwarf tables, which I can't even evaluate the accuracy of since I'm not an expert."
> Typically, any time you think you've found a compiler error, you're using it wrong...
Yes, if you can't figure out if it's a bug, the bug tracker is the wrong place to get help. Ask in a community forum instead.
onlyrealcuzzoan hour ago
> Not okay: "I compile this input and the linker crashes. Also here's 10 paragraphs of slop about dwarf tables, which I can't even evaluate the accuracy of since I'm not an expert."
It's a 20-line file with a few commands to run it to reproduce it. Not 10 paragraphs of slop.
Presumably that is much more helpful than - here's my gigantic repo, good luck running my tests, also good luck finding the bug.
nvme0n1p1an hour ago
> here's my gigantic repo, good luck running my tests
What about my comment made you think I was suggesting not to give repro steps?
> also good luck finding the bug
But yes actually, this half is true. It's better to give them no extra information, than to give too much information that you have no idea if it's true or not.
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
acedTrex4 hours ago
> breaks the project rules
> gets ignored
Who could have forseen this.
doctorpangloss3 hours ago
Their policy is immature. Clicking little upvote and downvote buttons is immature. Better to just lie and duplicate the issue.
senderista3 hours ago
Seems like "parallel construction" where you show you actually understand and can explain the issue independent of an LLM would be the way to go. No need to mention how you found the bug as long as you can explain what the bug is, why it matters, and how to repro.
bigstrat20033 hours ago
Lying to get around a project policy you disagree with is immature. They have the right to run things the way they want, either accept their rules or leave the project be.
UncleOxidant4 hours ago
If they really insist on no LLM involvement at all then they're going to fall behind and lose out. Your LLM use case seems really very conservative - you didn't write any code with it, you just use it to confirm the bug. There are many OSS projects that are also taking a similar hardline against LLMs - people are going to fork them and then move on. I've had LLMs fix bugs/add features to a couple of projects like this and, well, they're missing out on the fixes/added features that I'm using locally.
0c3ca832 hours ago
People keep promising me that I'll be left behind, but somehow it never seems to happen.
nvme0n1p12 hours ago
They remind me of the "have fun staying poor" people from crypto
0c3ca83an hour ago
I'd really love to figure out how to stay behind, but the people who keep insisting I'll be left behind are doing their level best to prevent it.
onlyrealcuzzoan hour ago
TBF, most people did stay poor, they just didn't really get richer.
acedTrex4 hours ago
They are doing fine, all this "left behind" talk has no basis other than cope.
greggoB4 hours ago
Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI.
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
nvme0n1p14 hours ago
> Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
spankalee4 hours ago
One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro.
I'm doing it myself: https://zena-lang.dev/
0c3ca832 hours ago
It seems like such a strange thing to do, building a language that you aren't going to write by hand. It's guaranteed to perform worse at higher cost, fill up a lot more of the context window, and burn a ton more reasoning tokens.
If you're using AI, a language with a large training set is going to win.
spankalee15 minutes ago
I don't think those assertions about AI development necessarily hold. And I think it'd be a depressing future if we can't ever have anything new or better that wasn't popular in the training set as of November 2025.
I wrote about some of my thoughts with Zena and AI here: https://zena-lang.dev/blog/2026/09/languages-for-the-ai-era/
Karrot_Kream2 hours ago
I guess it depends on whether you will write everything in an AI assisted fashion or not. There's benefits to languages that are quick and easy to read by the author even if the LLM is doing the writing, because most code still benefits from human review above and beyond the review that agents provide. Language popularity certainly helps but it seems like for moderately popular languages [1] the cost you pay for a lack of popularity is quite modest.
0c3ca832 hours ago
A language you just created isn't going to be moderately popular, so it's just going to put you at a disadvantage -- and you're not even going to be writing in it, so why the self-kneecapping?
Karrot_Kreaman hour ago
I mean what does "put you at a disadvantage" even mean concretely? To use a less popular language, it means you need to load up context related to the semantics of your language, load context on how to invoke tools to make sure the syntax with your language is correct, load up context related to each tool call you make (which will be more numerous in a niche language), and load up context on architectural decisions that might be specific to your language. All of this is simply a token cost. By forcing a model to load an initial amount of context per harness turn you also effectively shorten the max context window beyond which the model becomes stupid (which itself is much shorter than the max context length.)
Obviously it's not like people are specifically trimming each and every prompt they give a model to tokenmax their models to get the best output / input prompt, we instead live in a spectrum of how many tokens of input and context we're willing to provide to a model to make progress. If the cost of those tokens is low enough for the problem domain you're working in, then it's fine. For some the readability of a personal language may outstrip any of the token costs that one needs to pay to use it. Alternatively maybe you want something like an array language (J, K, APL, etc) which allows array programming and optimizations that conventional PLs just can't do. Maybe you want your language to compile to a target that is highly portable. There's actually a lot of stuff out there that previously wasn't feasible but with LLMs-as-force-multiplier absolutely is.
I also suspect the space is a continuum. There may be pareto optimal points, such as DSLs built atop languages, that are both highly readable but also fairly token efficient.
itishappyan hour ago
This assumes the goal is to create a productive language.
When I design my own languages (I have written several, all terrible!) it's typically to learn about language design.
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
Karrot_Kream4 hours ago
Been thinking about doing this myself (did some PL in grad school but it's been a long time), but I find myself wanting to reach for a Scheme (using macros to grow the language I want) and customize it or build something atop Janet.
Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.)
spankalee13 minutes ago
The syntax is TypeScript inspired because I like it and my bet is that the familiarity helps human and AI coders learn the language.
agentultra4 hours ago
Claude can’t one-shot a C compiler.
None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler.
The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert.
UncleOxidant4 hours ago
You're not going to one-shot it, but over the course of a couple of months of evenings you could come up with something usable/interesting if you manage the LLM well.
IshKebab4 hours ago
Nobody is one-shotting big projects. Even humans can't do that.
DASD3 hours ago
Fabrice Bellard might be an exception.
dingdingdang4 hours ago
Yep, it's true, but the reality of what it would take to actually fork and commence with healthy use of AI alongside with the elusive soft/hard stance needed to lead technically and socially is probably a bigger challenge than anyone is willing to take on! Soo.. slow and (rather?) well it goes for Zig.
mg744 hours ago
Slow and steady wins the race
re-thc4 hours ago
Anthropic levels of slowness (pacing)?
jibalt4 hours ago
Parables aren't reality.
mathisfun1234 hours ago
in tech? really?
combobyte3 hours ago
Language design and implementation is much more in the realm of actual computer science than it is "tech"
Zak4 hours ago
In programming languages, usually. Building software on top of a rapidly-changing language is not often a recipe for success.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
nvme0n1p14 hours ago
Yes, the Lindy effect applies in tech too.
saghm4 hours ago
And apparently ignores legitimate compiler bugs on the way that someone happened to ask an LLM to double check their diagnosis
acedTrex4 hours ago
Im really enjoying using it, works great tbh
DASD4 hours ago
Seems to be C++ing which is disappointing. Looking more at C3 and Odin for cases where I'd hoped Zig to land.
deagle504 hours ago
Odin scratches this “stick shift” itch for me better than anything else. Highly recommended.
yurish3 hours ago
In what sense are the C++ing? Too complicated or what?
zer0-c00l4 hours ago
can you elaborate on what you mean by "C++ing"?
sureglymop4 hours ago
C3 is honestly so good and a bit underrated.
silisili4 hours ago
It's my favorite of the new round of languages by far. I just wish it had a bigger ecosystem.
osigurdson2 hours ago
Curious as to the state of evented IO / io_uring in this version.
luiwammus4 hours ago
Although I understand that upgrading LLVM version is a lot of work, it's a bit frustating that loop vectorization is still disabled.
alexrp4 hours ago
The fix could not be backported to LLVM 22 because it changed the LLVM library ABI. We also could not skip straight to LLVM 23 because that would make life harder for distro package maintainers.
nvme0n1p12 hours ago
Was loop vectorization by chance enabled in 0.15.2 and disabled since 0.16.0? One of my projects got 14% slower after upgrading to 0.16. I didn't dig in yet but I assumed the Io vtable was the cause (it does a lot of file io). But if the versions line up maybe it's actually loop vectorization.
Thanks for your work btw.
alexrp5 minutes ago
Yes, 0.16.0 and 0.17.0 are the only two releases that have loop vectorization disabled. (And it will be re-enabled in 0.18.0.)
boomlinde2 hours ago
I just noticed it today upgrading to 0.17.0 from 0.15.2, while doing bitwise operations a lot of large integers. I haven't looked at a debugger yet, but my guess is that would benefit a lot from loop vectorization.
vitaminCPP3 hours ago
You should not worry. They said they would make a short release cycle for updating to 23.
ErenayDevop5 hours ago
internet20003 hours ago
Any change to the AI policy?
Retro_Dev2 hours ago
Nope, but why would it matter? Nobody is stopping you from writing Zig code with an LLM, the policy you are referring to is only relevant to the compiler source code.
ai_critic4 hours ago
> Please consider a recurring donation so that we can offer more billable hours to our core team members.
Just don't be surprised if the project BFDL talks shit about you or your company later.
(Still a good language though, credit where credit is due.)
senderista3 hours ago
I wouldn't consider donating until the project leader has demonstrated considerably more personal maturity.
dimator3 hours ago
would you rather the reverse to be true? if someone donates enough that's sufficient for the BDFL to silence their opinions?
preommr3 hours ago
yes.
A simple, "this entity is a sponsor, and therefore there is a conflict of interest and we will not comment on recent controversy" is enough.
If it's big enough, refuse to take further contributions.
I know it's not entertaining, but that's why we have video games.
ai_critic3 hours ago
Back in a more adult age, the way that this was handled was "We've benefited from our past collaboration, but we believe a new direction is needed going forward."
For some reason--COVID brain rot, poorly-socialized people coming online, general increase in viciousness in the population, who knows!--people have forgotten the utility and purpose of boring polite manners and communication.
creata33 minutes ago
Not sure how it's new. Torvalds and plenty like him have been more abrasive for much longer.
bricss3 hours ago
[flagged]