Thoughts on Go vs. Rust vs. Zig

📝 Discussion Summary (Click to expand)

Here are the three most prevalent themes from the Hacker News discussion:

1. Rust's Perceived Complexity vs. Simplicity/Ergonomics

There is a significant debate regarding whether Rust is inherently "hard" due to its concept density (traits, lifetimes, etc.) or if this difficulty is overstated, particularly for developers who embrace its functional/type-driven approach. Conversely, some users find that Rust's features, while powerful, introduce excessive ceremony compared to simpler languages.

Supporting Quotes:
- Regarding Rust's conceptual load: "I think that you are missing the point - they're not saying (at least in my head) 'Rust is hard because of all the abstractions' but, more 'Rust is hard because you are having to explain to the COMPILER [more explicitly] what you mean (via all these abstractions)'" (awesome_dude).
- On the value of simplicity (contrasting with Rust): "I would love to see a language that is to C what Rust is to C++. Something a more average human brain like mine can understand. Keep the no-gc memory safety things, but simplify everything else a thousand times." (1313ed01).
- Countering the difficulty claim: "Rust is not hard. Rust has a standard library that looks an awful lot like Python or Ruby, with similarly named methods." (echelon).

2. The Philosophical Divide Between Rust and Zig (Aiming for C/C++ Replacement)

The discussion frequently positions Zig as a deliberate counterpoint to Rust, often serving as a preferred path for C/C++ developers who find Rust's abstractions (especially traits/OOP features) excessive, favoring Zig's approach to manual memory management and lower conceptual overhead.

Supporting Quotes:
- "I feel like Zig is for the C / C++ developers that really dislike Rust." (echelon, Yoric).
- "Zig's niche is in the vein of languages that encourages using pointers for business logic. If you like this style, Rust and most other new languages aren't an option." (the__alchemist).
- On RAII: "I really hate the anti-RAII sentiments and arguments. [...] I think Zig's errdefer is a cool extension on the defer pattern, but defer patterns are strictly worse than scope based automation for key tasks." (raggi).

3. Rust's Error Handling Model vs. Alternatives (Particularly Go's)

A major point of contention involves Rust's reliance on Result enums (requiring explicit handling via traits like Error and From) compared to the more idiomatic, multiple-return-value approach used in Go, which many find simpler for application code despite concerns over type safety.

Supporting Quotes:
- Conflicting experiences with Rust error handling: "I think my main grievance with Rust’s error handling is that, while I’m sure there is the possibility to use anyhow, thiserror, non_exhaustive, etc in various combinations to build an overall elegant error handling system, that system isn’t (last I checked) canon, and different people give different, sometimes contradictory advice." (throwaway894345).
- Go's simplicity in contrast: "By contrast, I just wrap Go errors with fmt.Errorf("opening file%s: %w", filePath, err) and handle any special error cases with errors.As() and similar and move on with life." (throwaway894345).
- Defining the vocabulary difference: "In Go, if err != nil { return nil, fmt.Errorf(...) } is considered handling an error. In Rust, the equivalent .context(...)? is considered passing an error." (Yoric).

🚀 Project Ideas

Rust Ergonomics Debugger & Explainer (RED-X)

Summary

[A tool/IDE plugin that intercepts Rust compiler errors/warnings related to complex syntax (traits, projections, lifetimes, async Poll/Future boilerplate) and translates them into clearer, actionable steps or simpler examples.]
[Reduces the cognitive load associated with Rust's conceptual density, making it more accessible to developers transitioning from C/Go who find Rust hard due to required abstractions.]

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Intermediate Rust developers, former C/C++ developers struggling with advanced features, and those confused by complex compiler error messages (e.g., pointing to a trait projection failure).
Core Feature	Real-time error analysis. When a complex error occurs (e.g., involving `impl Trait` or deep error propagation like `thiserror` macro expansion issues), RED-X suggests an equivalent, simpler code snippet or explains why the compiler requires a specific trait or annotation (like `Send`/`Sync` for statics) using relatable analogies.]
Tech Stack	Language Server Protocol (LSP) implementation for IDE integration (VS Code, IntelliJ Rust Plugin). Could leverage existing compiler error parsing libraries (like `miette` or customized `rustc` output parsing) and use a small, curated knowledge base/model for explanation generation.]
Difficulty	High (Requires deep understanding of Rust's compilation stages and type system internals to accurately map complex errors to simple causes.)
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

["I think that you are missing the point - they're not saying... 'Rust is hard because of all the abstractions' but, more 'Rust is hard because you are having to explain to the COMPILER [more explicitly] what you mean'"] - This project directly addresses the need to ease that explicit explanation process.
[This targets the frustration voiced by users who feel they have to "learn how to program again" and would appeal to users looking for clearer guardrails without the initial friction.]

Go-Style Error Handling Toolkit for Rust (GoErrKit)

Summary

[A structured collection of Rust macros and helper traits designed to mimic the ergonomic simplicity of Go's if err != nil { return err } flow, while retaining Rust's type safety via Result and optional context wrapping.]
[Provides canonized, simple patterns for error propagation and introspection, settling the "conflicting advice" on idiomatic error handling in Rust.]

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Developers coming from Go or those who find Rust's default error propagation (`.context()?` or manual trait implementation) too verbose or non-canonical.]
Core Feature	Provides macros like `go_try!` (mimics Go's conditional return if the error is present, optionally chaining context), and standardized interfaces (`GoLikeError`) that simplify the use of `anyhow` or `thiserror` only when introspection is explicitly needed (using `errors.As()` logic via trait methods).]
Tech Stack	Rust library/Crate. Focus heavily on clean macro hygiene to avoid the macro expansion debugging issues previously mentioned.]
Difficulty	Medium (Macros can be complex, but the goal is simplifying existing patterns rather than inventing new compiler logic.)
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

[User stated: "By contrast, I just wrap Go errors with fmt.Errorf("opening file%s: %w", filePath, err) and handle any special error cases with errors.As() and similar and move on with life." GoErrKit aims to provide that straightforward path while allowing users to opt-in to deeper type analysis when necessary.]
[Directly addresses the pain point: "The main grievance with Rust’s error handling is that... that system isn’t (last I checked) canon, and different people give different, sometimes contradictory advice."]

Minimalist Feature Subset Language Explorer (Minimality Linter)

Summary

[A tool that analyzes a Rust/Zig/C codebase and suggests/demonstrates how to achieve the same functionality while explicitly disabling or avoiding specific complex language features (e.g., disabling all generics, removing traits, using only stack allocation in Rust, or removing try blocks in Zig).]
[Solves the desire for "a language that is to C what Rust is to C++" or "Keep the no-gc memory safety things, but simplify everything else a thousand times."]

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Developers seeking the "bare minimum to make it perfectly safe" from Rust, or users who perceive Rust's feature set as offering too much "visible rope to hang yourself with."]
Core Feature	A static analysis tool that generates a subset configuration profile (e.g., "Rust-C-Mode") and offers refactoring suggestions to adhere only to the simplest subset of the language that still guarantees memory safety, effectively creating a "C++-Lite" or "Rust-Lite" environment.]
Tech Stack	Rust-based static analysis tool (leveraging `rustc` AST analysis or similar parser). Could also include a module for analyzing Zig code against its simpler control flow structures.]
Difficulty	High (Requires differentiating between core safety features and optional ergonomic features across languages.)
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

[Addresses the sentiment: "I would love to see a language that is to C what Rust is to C++... Simplify everything else a thousand times." This tool allows users to self-impose that simplification constraint on existing, powerful languages.]
[The output would likely spark debate ["What do people generally write in Rust?"], increasing engagement by formalizing the discussion around complexity vs. guarantees.]