Jump to content

Zig’s Build System Is Quietly More Revolutionary Than Rust’s Borrow Checker

From JOHNWICK

It started, as these things often do, with a broken build.

You know that feeling when the terminal mocks you with 47 red lines and one smug message — “missing dependency: please reinstall”? Yeah. That.

We were migrating a small backend service — nothing fancy, just a caching layer — and I figured I’d try Zig. I’d heard people whispering about it like some underground cult of simplicity. “Zig’s build system is amazing,” they said. And honestly? I didn’t get it.

I mean, how could a build system be revolutionary? Rust has the borrow checker, Go has goroutines, Python has chaos — but build systems? Those are supposed to be boring.

Except… Zig’s isn’t.

“Build.zig” Isn’t Just a Script — It’s a Language Here’s where my confusion began.

In Zig, your build file isn’t some weird DSL or opaque YAML blob. It’s just Zig code — real, executable logic. You can import packages, run conditionals, generate artifacts — all from one language. 

const std = @import("std");

pub fn build(b: *std.Build) void {
    const target = b.standardTargetOptions(.{});
    const optimize = b.standardOptimizeOption(.{});
    const exe = b.addExecutable(.{
        .name = "cache-server",
        .root_source_file = .{ .path = "src/main.zig" },
        .target = target,
        .optimize = optimize,
    });
    exe.install();
    b.default_step.dependOn(&exe.step);
}

When I first saw this, my brain short-circuited a bit.
Wait, I can program my build? In Rust, I’d been wrestling with Cargo.toml and build.rs like a bad relationship — everything almost worked until it didn’t.
But Zig? It just handed me the steering wheel. I could configure, conditionally compile, and even run tests, all without leaving one file.


“But wait,” I hear you say, “why should I care?” Because — and this hit me at 3 a.m. while debugging a dependency conflict — Zig treats build configuration as code, not metadata. That’s subtle, but it changes everything. It means:

  • No fragile YAML.
  • No hidden toolchains.
  • No “magic” resolution of dependencies you never approved.

You literally decide how your program is built. Every line is explicit. Every path is known. And weirdly enough… that’s liberating.


Rust’s Borrow Checker Is Brilliant — But Predictable Let’s be clear: I love Rust. The borrow checker has probably saved my career more times than caffeine. But it’s predictable brilliance. It enforces discipline — once you internalize the rules, you play the game.

Zig’s build system, though?
It’s like someone handed you the keys to your own compiler infrastructure and said, “Here, try not to blow it up.”

You can:

  • Define your own commands (b.addRunArtifact(exe))
  • Generate code dynamically
  • Cross-compile seamlessly with zig build -Dtarget=aarch64-linux

I tried this on Zig 0.13.0, building for ARM while on an Intel Mac.
No Docker.
No QEMU.
Just one line: 

$ zig build -Dtarget=aarch64-linux

It worked.
First try.
And honestly? I didn’t see it coming.


The “No Magic” Philosophy Zig’s entire design feels like a rebellion against invisible layers. Rust hides complexity behind abstractions (beautiful ones, mind you). Go hides it behind opinionated defaults.
Zig? It hides nothing.

If you want to cross-compile, you specify the target.
If you want to strip symbols, you call the function.
If you want to add a dependency, you write a line of code that literally describes it.

At first, it feels like extra work.
Then, you realize it’s less cognitive debt in the long run.

Because when something breaks — and it will — you don’t have to guess what black box failed.
You wrote the box.


Example: Adding a Dependency

Here’s how you might add zlib manually: 

const zlib = b.dependency("zlib", .{
    .target = target,
    .optimize = optimize,
});

exe.linkLibrary(zlib.artifact("zlib"));

Simple, right?
No “Cargo.lock” wars. No NPM left-pad meltdowns.
Just direct, auditable relationships between your build artifacts. And because build.zig is code, you can literally loop, branch, or inject logic: 

if (b.args.contains("debug-mode")) {
    exe.define("DEBUG", "1");
}

I mean, come on. Tell me you don’t want that kind of power.


It’s Not Just About Speed — It’s About Trust

When people talk about Zig’s build system, they usually mention performance.
And sure, it’s fast.
Like, “built-in caching with no external tooling” fast.

But the deeper thing Zig nails is trust.

I don’t have to wonder what it’s doing.
No hidden build cache. No dependency resolver praying to some registry.

You can literally trace the build step by step.

Here’s a real log from one of my test runs: 

$ zig build
info: Compiling cache-server (release-fast)
info: Linking executable: zig-out/bin/cache-server
success: Build complete. Time: 0.78s

No drama. No warnings about reproducibility. No 300MB .cargo folder.

And the best part? The build description is small enough that I actually read it.
Try saying that about your CMakeLists.txt.


A Tiny Compiler That Feels Like a System

At some point, it hit me: Zig’s build system isn’t a “toolchain.” It’s a philosophy — one where simplicity is control.

You don’t have a package manager because the compiler is one.
You don’t have multiple build profiles because you can code them yourself.

It’s the same ethos that made C last decades — but without the footguns. And yeah, maybe I sound like a convert now.
But I wasn’t always.

The first time I saw a build.zig, I thought, “Why the hell do I have to write code just to build code?”

Then I realized…
That’s the point.

The compiler shouldn’t make assumptions for me. It should let me make them consciously.


A Tale of Two Philosophies

Here’s how I see it now:

Rust gives you a fortress.
Zig gives you a forge.

Both protect you — but one expects you to understand the fire.


When the Abstraction Is the Enemy

Here’s the thing no one tells you:
Most of our “modern” toolchains — from npm to pip to cargo — aren’t helping us understand our builds. They’re helping us avoid them.

And sometimes, that’s fine.
But sometimes, abstraction is the enemy.

I once spent three hours debugging a Rust project because a sub-dependency’s feature flag didn’t propagate correctly through Cargo. Three hours. For one flag.

In Zig, that would’ve been one if statement in build.zig.

That’s when it clicked.
Or maybe snapped.

I didn’t want more magic.
I wanted transparency.


Lessons Zig Taught Me (the Hard Way)

  • Build simplicity is a feature.
The fewer layers between your code and your binary, the less can go wrong.
  • Configuration as code scales better than configuration as metadata.
build.zig won’t “age out” like your JSONs and TOMLs. It evolves with the language.
  • Magic is fun — until it breaks.
And when it does, you’ll wish you’d read the fine print.
  • Explicit > clever.
It’s not trendy, but it’s maintainable.


The Takeaway

Rust’s borrow checker taught me how to trust my code.
Zig’s build system taught me how to trust my process.

One saves you from memory leaks.
The other saves you from the build equivalent of Stockholm syndrome. And honestly? That might be the bigger revolution.

Because once you’ve written a build system that’s just… code — you start wondering why we ever accepted anything else.

Retrieved from "https://johnwick.cc/index.php?title=Zig’s_Build_System_Is_Quietly_More_Revolutionary_Than_Rust’s_Borrow_Checker&oldid=372"