I really think Craig needs to go. I can't remember a single software decision under his tenure that is good. Having said that I don't know who can replace him.
Bertrand Serlet, Avie Tevanian, Scott Forstall were all great with software directions.
Craig feels like a people pleaser. Which may be great for modern or current Silicon Valley where everything has a softer approach. But pleasing everyone means there is no unity and direction. Software stack that is less cohesive.
I still to this day do not believe Swift is the right path, in both technical and philosophical approach.
To be fair, Safari 18 ( finally ) improved a lot on what what reported in both State of CSS and JS. With 26 even better, it is gotten to the point where I believe hopefully 27 it will be a non-issue most of the time. As long as they continue to grind through everything for the next few years and not stop / pulling out resource on Safari Team.
Agree on the time/performance budget. It is pain stupid. As has been the case for so many years. And yet nothing has been done about it.
The Tab Overview is due to some background tab reload.
I could basically sums up your experience as Safari is appalling at multi tab resource management. And it has been the case for 14+ years and counting.
It wasn't until Safari 18 before I have most of the rendering issues gone on sites I visit. Safari 26 is completely gone. I haven't encountered one since Safari 26.1.
With a lot of features done, I just hope Safari turn its attention to performance and snappiness of the browser. Multi Tabs doesn't work. For people who uses more than 30+ Tabs is when it start getting slow. Safari used to have an option to unload background tab and that usually fix 80% of the problem but it was taken out some years ago.
>Getting IPv6 to about 50% deployment has taken more than 25 years. Any alternative or new proposal would be the same.
That is oversimplified a few things. The 50% deployment is largely Mobile Phone + Cloudflare and India. ( Not sure about China ). Outside of that things aren't that different from a high level overview.
You could have 50% deployment in less than 10 years if 6G Mobile Phone mandate the use of let say IPv8.
The language still have many breaking changes post 1.0, no windows support until recent two years and the compiler is slow is often the first thing people complain about.
It's strange, because it has been over 10 years now. To get to 0.20, seems like it would be another 2 to 3 years. The weirdest thing is how Zig continuously gets a pass for being "almost there", for around 5 years now.
An argument could be made that why it's taking so long is about the language's BDFL wanting the freedom to continually make breaking changes. As it is, they got another bewildering pass for sweeping 3,000 plus issues under the rug, with the move from GitHub to Codeberg.
Programming languages take a long time to build. Zig is a more ambitious project than most. I see lots of progress in these release notes and I'm happy to "give a pass" for the fact that it's not finished.
No one's been giving passes bewildering or otherwise for sweeping issues under the rug, because that didn't happen. The 0.16 release notes are linking to plenty of GitHub issues. If you have additional information to post on an issue then you can copy it to Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/30027
I think Andrew should seriously think about decoupling the toolchain from the language to put focus on reaching stability there. As it is, we have the compiler with surrounding toolchain, the standard library and the language. The two former can keep evolving even language is fixed.
Just being ambitious isn’t necessarily good. Look at Perl6.
I honestly dont see it as an issue. At least not for now. You could have languages or software released as 1.0 at any time but they are not finished or ready for it. Arguably Crystal is a bit like that.
Or you end up like NIM which they are on 3rd or 4th version already.
And frankly speaking, a lot of people took to Wiki and said it has been 10 years, in reality Andrew only started working on it full time in 2018, and had a year off due to other personal issues, and then COVID hit. Together It is more like 6 years than 10.
Odin started in 2017, had a fraction of the contributors and is soon 1.0, so that explanation isn’t cutting it.
If you instead look at the over 500 kloc of the Zig source compared to the 70 kloc of the Odin one, it’s a bit clearer why the delay happened: the goals of Zig kept expanding.
But not only that: ”juicy main” and Io is something that could have been in Zig from the early days and yet it isn’t. In the Io case it’s Zig pivoting from ”we have colorless async!” to no async, to Io.
In other words, Andrew is still experimenting with the language (and more is to come, like ranged integers). This is not the signs of a maturing language, it a language still very much in flux, trying to find its form.
The contrast to Odin is that for the last 2-3 years it has had minimal syntax tweaks, and is essentially in release candidate mode for the language.
Even if Zig didn’t need more changes, it would still need that stabilization period.
IFS now doesn’t have a major customer but it seems like companies are at least taking them seriously now. LBT doesn’t have the same arrogance that Pat had when it comes to courting external customers.
Yes, they over invested at the wrong time, cancelled fabs or delayed them. Had they saw the AI boom coming in 2023, he wouldn’t have cancelled.
Also because the Trump administration is twisting arms of big potential customers like Apple, in order to have a second source and reduce dependence on Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing. That's despite Lip-Bu Tan, whom Trump distrusts simply because he is ethnically Chinese.
>Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet.
Let's face it. Everything he cut, and products / department he sold were what he wanted to do on day one. He had to force his hand, make the stock price worst and ultimately force the board to allow him to do it.
You could argue he laid all the foundation for today's Intel to thrive.
Yes, I am pointing the fingers at the board. Although words on the street was the board also have their hands tied as they were also beholden to large institutional investors. It is all a Game of Cards.
Bertrand Serlet, Avie Tevanian, Scott Forstall were all great with software directions.
Craig feels like a people pleaser. Which may be great for modern or current Silicon Valley where everything has a softer approach. But pleasing everyone means there is no unity and direction. Software stack that is less cohesive.
I still to this day do not believe Swift is the right path, in both technical and philosophical approach.
reply