>I see what went wrong here. You tried to lean on documentation and Google, you should have just go for the source code.
That sounds rather like a different thing was wrong - not where the author tried to lean: Zig has crap documentation.
That sounds rather like a different thing was wrong - not where the author tried to lean: Zig has crap documentation.
Zig is young. They're spending their time maturing the core ecosystem --- the compiler, the standard library, and so forth. It's perfectly reasonable to expect early adopters to "RTFS/read the fucking source". *When* they start writing documentation, I'd be perfectly happy to hear comments like "The zig documentation is crap".
At this stage of the project, I'll be honest, I find it upsetting to read comments like this.
Right now, Zig is young and the documentation is kinda ok (Language reference is clear enough, outside a few things that need better visibility, for example, explaining concepts that are only on the examples can be lost easy), the autogenerated std on the other hand used to work meh, until a commit broke it afaik, so rn is in a pityfull state, but there is no use in reworking it until stage 2, so that's that
Well, crap as an offering (what you get atm), not necessarily as in the quality of what little it is. It does though have a reference and documentation page:
These docs are experimental. Progress depends on the self-hosted compiler, consider reading the stdlib source in the meantime.