Hare is much simpler than Zig. The Hare compiler is 1/10th the size of the Zig compiler. The standard libraries, which I reckon are pretty comparable in terms of features, are again separated by an order of magnitude in size. Zig is also (presently) based on LLVM, which heaps on another huge pile of complexity, whereas Hare is based on qbe: 13,000 lines of C89. Bootstrapping Hare is also significantly easier and much faster than Zig.
Hare's design is a lot different from Zig's as well. Hare lacks comptime and generics, and does not target non-free platforms like Windows and macOS.
However, the target audience and supported use-cases for the two languages is similar. It mostly comes down to a matter of preference for most people.
Hare's design is a lot different from Zig's as well. Hare lacks comptime and generics, and does not target non-free platforms like Windows and macOS.
However, the target audience and supported use-cases for the two languages is similar. It mostly comes down to a matter of preference for most people.