> Zig's compiler is self-contained. It includes a build system, cross-compilers, and package management features. This makes it simple for small projects or single-language codebases.
> C follows a different philosophy. Its toolchain is composable. The compiler, linker, build system, and package manager are independent pieces. You can use GCC or Clang, build with Make or Ninja, manage dependencies with apt or brew, and link with ld, lld, or mold.
Zig would be more composable, as rather than being separate programs, you can write code to compose them in different ways. You are composing in zig rather than bash.
I see it a bit differently. Zig's toolchain is self-contained: one binary gives you the compiler, build system, cross-compilers, and a package manager. It doesnt depend on the system toolchain, which makes builds reproducible and easy to move between machines.
C's ecosystem is the opposite. It is modular, built from separate tools like GCC, ld, Make, and apt. You compose them externally.
> Zig's compiler is self-contained. It includes a build system, cross-compilers, and package management features. This makes it simple for small projects or single-language codebases.
> C follows a different philosophy. Its toolchain is composable. The compiler, linker, build system, and package manager are independent pieces. You can use GCC or Clang, build with Make or Ninja, manage dependencies with apt or brew, and link with ld, lld, or mold.
Zig would be more composable, as rather than being separate programs, you can write code to compose them in different ways. You are composing in zig rather than bash.