How funny that you write this comment as if “comptime” is the thing that is the “simple code” alternative in this context: most static languages go with the usual angle-brackets thing for generics, which is fairly declarative and somewhat limited. Zig however has gone with a more general approach: use “comptime” functions which take types as arguments in order to specialize functions. That is way more fancy.
You can get away with not writing macros in most languages that have them. But a lot of static languages makes you use generics (parametric polymorphism) pretty frequently. And this two-stage evaluation (something like `funny(@comptime T: Type, a: T, …)`) is the simple-code flagship feature, in your book?
> most static languages go with the usual angle-brackets thing for generics, which is fairly declarative and somewhat limited. Zig however has gone with a more general approach: use “comptime” functions which take types as arguments in order to specialize functions. That is way more fancy.
This seems like you're comparing the most basic usage of C++ templates to the full generality of Zig comptime. But isn't this ignoring the fact that people write absurdly complicated template metaprograms in C++ that are very difficult to understand and debug? C, C++, and Rust require you to learn a second language to do metaprogramming, Zig doesn't.
You can get away with not writing macros in most languages that have them. But a lot of static languages makes you use generics (parametric polymorphism) pretty frequently. And this two-stage evaluation (something like `funny(@comptime T: Type, a: T, …)`) is the simple-code flagship feature, in your book?