TypeScript vs Zig

Presents some advantages compared to Javascript, but because it is designed to be a superset of Javascript, it means all the bad parts of Javascript are still present.

You have to use compiler flags to make sure it catches flaws like usage of implicit any, etc.

The default type when declaring and using a variable is any. For example, the following should break but does not:

function add(a:number) { return a + 1 }
function addAB(a, b) {return add(a) + b}

addAB("this should break but doesn't :(", 100)

In order to avoid this, you have to declare type signatures for every variable or parameter or set the flag --noImplicityAny when running the compiler.

Even in cases were there is no ambiguity, you still have to use "this.fieldName" instead of just "fieldName".

Typescript compiler does not remove dead code from generated file(s), you have to use external tools to remove unused code after compilation. This is harder to achieve, because Typescript compiler eliminated all type information.

There is no clean way to have debug and release builds compiled from the same source, where the release version removes all debugging tools and outputs from the generated file(s).

Comparing to Elm or Rust for example, TypeScript's error messages won't say you very much. For example if you change method of interface which your class implements it won't say your class have incorrect implementation. Instead it'll show error in usage of instances of class. In some cases it can spoil hours of your work trying to figure out why your parameters are incorrect.

As consequence of not enforcing type checking.

Just compare this and this.
Typescript => 930
Dart => 2060

If you prefer a Java-like approach of partitioning your code into different packages, the module system of typescript will confuse you.

Claims to be an improvement over C, but in this area, not really.

Missing many key and useful features other languages have.

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.

Creator admits his shortcomings during Zig Roadmap speech. Very disturbing. Not a language to invest in or take seriously, outside personal experimentation.

Does not have closures.

Lacking in libraries and users.

Features that are useful are missing, where you can find them in other languages.

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.

Article 1
Article 2

Several years into development, language still a mess, and no hope of fixing itself for yet more years later.

Several years into development, and still no standard package manager is ridiculous.

Strange culture that bashes other languages and are not open to criticism about the faults of their language. Very close-minded, sometimes scary.