clr

> The compelling reason is that it's the only way that has worked because it's hard enough that people don't try. and then they settle for rust. this is what i mean by "rust sucks the air out of the room". however, its clearly not impossible, for example this authors incomplete example: https://github.com/ityonemo/clr > That would mean waiting at least 10 years, what if it's not ten years, what if it could be six months? is or worth paying all the other downstream costs of rust? youre risking getting trapped in a local minimum.

> We don't have a Rust-killer language yet. The type-system analysis of Rust is smart, but not restricted to the language per se, see https://github.com/ityonemo/clr. One merely has to have proper namespacing and necessary type info from generic code to do annotations and solve them. These things are solved in Rust via trait system. Retroactively patching C to have namespaces will not work and same holds for generics, meaning concrete how to attach lifetimes to generic code. > Zig went in a different direction. There is stuff cooking for debugging comptime and better than lsp infos, but this is only wip and hearsay. Might be enough to write external static analysis or not. Correct me, if wrong etc.

in principle static checking of memory safety in zig could be a thing, but there are some minor obstacles: https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

yes but by the time you're using miri, why not just run zig with a separate static checker that does all the memory safety parts? https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

protection from returning stack pointers seems to be detectable with static analysis of zig AIR. https://github.com/ityonemo/clr

even so it seems like it would eventually be possible to do more safety analysis for zig, if not in the compiler itself: https://github.com/ityonemo/clr