> Did you encounter memory bugs? Essentially what memory safety feature Odin offer? (From what I read here, Zig and Rust offer some features to eliminate entire classes of bugs which remove the nightmare of hours of debugging)
Odin is essentially in the same ballpark as Zig in terms of general safety features. Slices make dealing with blocks of things very easy in comparison to C, etc., and this helps a lot. Custom allocators make it easy to segment your memory usage up in scopes and that's basically how I deal with most things; you very rarely should be thinking about individual allocations in Odin, in my opinion.
> Anything you dislike or wish Odin has that other languages offer?
I would say that in general you have to be at least somewhat concerned with potential compiler bugs in certain languages and Odin would be one of them. That's not to say that I've stumbled on any interesting compiler bugs yet, but the fact that they very likely do exist because the compiler is a lot younger than `clang` or `gcc` makes it something that just exists in the background. Multiply that by some variable amount when something is more experimental or less tried and true. The obvious example there is the aforementioned debug info where on Linux this has been tried less so it is more likely to be worse, and so on.
In an ideal (fantasy) world I'd love something like type classes (from Haskell) in Odin; constraints on generic types that allow you to write code that can only do exactly the things expressed by those constraints. This gives you the capability to write code that is exactly as generic as it can logically be but no more and no less. Traits in Rust are the same thing. With that said, I don't believe that neither Haskell nor Rust implements them in a way that doesn't ruin compile time. Specialization of type classes is an optimization pass that basically has to exist and even just the fact that you have to search all your compiled code for an instance of a type class is probably prohibitively costly. It's very nice for expression but unless Odin could add them in a way that was better than Haskell/Rust I don't think it's worth having.
UFCS works really well in D but D also has ad-hoc function overloading whereas Odin has proc groups. I think UFCS only really works with exceptions as well, so I think it can become awkward really fast with the amount of places you want to return multiple values where your last one represents a possible error.
Odin is essentially in the same ballpark as Zig in terms of general safety features. Slices make dealing with blocks of things very easy in comparison to C, etc., and this helps a lot. Custom allocators make it easy to segment your memory usage up in scopes and that's basically how I deal with most things; you very rarely should be thinking about individual allocations in Odin, in my opinion.
> Anything you dislike or wish Odin has that other languages offer?
I would say that in general you have to be at least somewhat concerned with potential compiler bugs in certain languages and Odin would be one of them. That's not to say that I've stumbled on any interesting compiler bugs yet, but the fact that they very likely do exist because the compiler is a lot younger than `clang` or `gcc` makes it something that just exists in the background. Multiply that by some variable amount when something is more experimental or less tried and true. The obvious example there is the aforementioned debug info where on Linux this has been tried less so it is more likely to be worse, and so on.
In an ideal (fantasy) world I'd love something like type classes (from Haskell) in Odin; constraints on generic types that allow you to write code that can only do exactly the things expressed by those constraints. This gives you the capability to write code that is exactly as generic as it can logically be but no more and no less. Traits in Rust are the same thing. With that said, I don't believe that neither Haskell nor Rust implements them in a way that doesn't ruin compile time. Specialization of type classes is an optimization pass that basically has to exist and even just the fact that you have to search all your compiled code for an instance of a type class is probably prohibitively costly. It's very nice for expression but unless Odin could add them in a way that was better than Haskell/Rust I don't think it's worth having.
I would like to see how uniform function call syntax would work in Odin but this is actually addressed in the FAQ here: https://odin-lang.org/docs/faq/#why-does-odin-not-have-unifo...
UFCS works really well in D but D also has ad-hoc function overloading whereas Odin has proc groups. I think UFCS only really works with exceptions as well, so I think it can become awkward really fast with the amount of places you want to return multiple values where your last one represents a possible error.