When comparing Zig vs Vala, the Slant community recommends Zig for most people. In the question“What are the best systems programming languages?” Zig is ranked 7th while Vala is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose Zig is:
It's safer than C, at least.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Some safety
It's safer than C, at least.
Pro C Interop
Zig programs can import C libraries and export header files to be used in C programs.
Pro Performance
Zig is pretty fast, in some cases even faster than C.
Pro Cross-compilation is easy
The Zig compiler can build artifacts for any Tier 3 Supported platform without additional downloads.
Pro Control flow is simple and obvious
No operator overloading, property methods, runtime dispatch, macros, etc.
Pro Small binary
Produces binary smaller than C.
Pro Compile-time execution
Zig can execute code at compile-time, allowing for more performant and readable programs.
Pro No Hidden Control flow
Zig will not do anything on your back that might slow down your program & make you loose your control over your program.
Pro Rich GTK Support
Vala developed by Gnome Foundation.
Pro Fast
Underneath there is C. It makes some stuff easier to write than it would be with plain C code.
Pro Easy Syntax
Vala is syntactically similar to C# and includes several features such as: anonymous functions, signals, properties, generics, assisted memory management, exception handling, type inference, and foreach statements
Pro C compatible API (and ABI)
C programs can use libraries written in Vala, and vice versa.
Pro Good documentation
There is Valadoc and most of the libraries have Devhelp packages.
Pro Well-integrated with C language
Vala itself is compiled to C, therefore it can use the vast ecosystem of C language, with least effort.
Pro Stable ABI
You can write a library with ABI stability.
Pro A general purpose language
Vala is compiled to C and only requires GLib - or even nothing (posix profile)
Cons
Con Convoluted syntax
Claims to be an improvement over C, but in this area, not really.
Con No lambdas
Missing many key and useful features other languages have.
Con Deceptively gives impression it's near being production ready
No plans to hit 1.0 until 2025 (3 years later), according to Zig Roadmap speech. Impression is given that (0.9.1) language was close to ready, when it's not.
Con Creator admits to not knowing what he's doing
Creator admits his shortcomings during Zig Roadmap speech. Very disturbing. Not a language to invest in or take seriously, outside personal experimentation.
Con No closures
Does not have closures.
Con Almost no community
Lacking in libraries and users.
Con No interfaces/traits
Features that are useful are missing, where you can find them in other languages.
Con Fundraising looks suspicious
Why do we keep seeing an overhyped unfinished alpha level language showing up everywhere? That answer looks like a financial incentive to promote the language, the Zig Software Foundation, that is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from donations. To aggressively maintain cash flow, it appears any opinions that goes against their narrative is suppressed, attacked, or eliminated. All while the hype machine runs rampant. That isn't a language for the people, that looks to be a cash grab for the few that will result in nothing useful. Save yourself the headache and games, better to just use C or other languages with C-like syntax, can interface with C, and are actually useful. Better to not waste your valuable time on crap like Zig, false media hype, or getting scammed.
”If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
This blog has published 2 excellent articles on how Zig's claims do not live up to reality after more than 6 years of development.
Con Poor compiler errors
Several years into development, language still a mess, and no hope of fixing itself for yet more years later.
Con No standard package manager
Several years into development, and still no standard package manager is ridiculous.
Con Exhibits cult-like behavior and animosity towards other programming languages
Strange culture that bashes other languages and are not open to criticism about the faults of their language. Very close-minded, sometimes scary.
Con Very few resources allocated to the language
Only a single person is working on Vala full time. Gnome Foundation isn't allocating sufficient resources to properly maintain Vala.
Con A very naïve approach to the real problem
Vala just adds more complexity to the game. No real benefits in using a 'programming language emulator' for UI code, you may think it adds to productivity but it's just a way to make the problem last longer, reinventing the wheel everytime and worse.
Con Very limited adoption
Vala isn't used in areas other than GTK development, and no major business has adopted the language.
Con Not a general purpose language
Can't use Vala in multiple software development areas.
Con Very limited tooling
Though using Gnome Builder, you can debug it easily.
Con Heavy reliance on GObject
Heavy reliance on GObject types, although Vala can be used without GObject. (posix profile)
Con Not well documented
It already has tons of documentation, even a book about Vala.https://leanpub.com/vala https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Vala/Documentation
Con No stable version
No stable version of Vala released for over a decade so far. Means that Vala isn't production ready.