4 ms·

Regardless the outcome, this is such a disrespectful move towards the huge amount of contributors who invested time and effort to learn the project and make it

Regardless the outcome, this is such a disrespectful move towards the huge amount of contributors who invested time and effort to learn the project and make it better. I hope the zig/dev community forks the project and continues the development. I'd rather use the fork than this project that has sacrificed its contributors for marketing purposes.

tasn 5mo ago
How is that different (in this sense) to any "slower" rewrites or other significant changes?
- asciimoo 5mo ago
  The difference is exactly the speed. Slowly transitioning from one thing to another gives the opportunity to contributors to get involved in the process.
  - adampunk 5mo ago
    So? Keep up. Just because some set of hypothetical contributors want a slow-moving target and the maintainers want to be on Rust now, I'm supposed to be mad at the maintainers? Why?
    - ozozozd 5mo ago
      I think they’re pointing out that maintainers would not care to continue. You know, for some people the word _community_ doesn’t mean “my free developers.”
embedding-shape 5mo ago
> this is such a disrespectful move towards the huge amount of contributors who invested time and effort to learn the project and make it better. What? How? You contribute to projects run by others with the understanding that others run the project, is this not the default assumption others have too when contributing to FOSS? Is it disrespectful if my proposed feature was merged, but then later was removed because the maintainer just didn't want the feature anymore? In my mind, pretty clear it wouldn't, I'm only a contributor after all, not the maintainer or the person running the project.
- asciimoo 5mo ago
  > Is it disrespectful if my proposed feature was merged, but then later was removed because the maintainer just didn't want the feature anymore? No, the big difference is that the described scenario does not require getting familiar with a new 1M LoC codebase written in a different language to be able to continue contributing to the project.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    For who? What you say is true for everyone who doesn't know Rust (before Zig), and not true for everyone else, same as it always is been, for every single FOSS project out there. So it's disrespectful because before you could contribute, but because of the direction of the project, you no longer can? Does that also means it'd be disrespectful to make projects more complicated and complex, because maybe someone who contributed initially don't know these new concepts, so introducing those would require this individual to learn about those things? All of this still sounds like entitlement to me. Open source literally isn't about you, let people run their projects as they so wish, them making choices they think are better isn't disrespectful to anyone else, you're not forced to having to contribute to any FOSS projects.
    - asciimoo 5mo ago
      > For who? What you say is true for everyone who doesn't know Rust (before Zig), and not true for everyone else, same as it always is been, for every single FOSS project out there. Even if you are fluent in rust, it is going to require significant efforts to contribute to a new 1M LoC codebase. > Open source literally isn't about you, let people run their projects as they so wish, them making choices they think are better This is so far from the reality. The power of open source is coming from the contributors. Contributors are the most valuable assets of an open source project - without them most of the free tools you use would be significantly worse - including bun. The reason my open source projects got somewhat successful is the community that formed around the projects. And, it is hard to create a community when you give contributors no chance to participate in the projects direction, especially in such a critical decision that has enormous consequences.

tasn 5mo ago

How is that different (in this sense) to any "slower" rewrites or other significant changes?

asciimoo 5mo ago
The difference is exactly the speed. Slowly transitioning from one thing to another gives the opportunity to contributors to get involved in the process.
- adampunk 5mo ago
  So? Keep up. Just because some set of hypothetical contributors want a slow-moving target and the maintainers want to be on Rust now, I'm supposed to be mad at the maintainers? Why?
  - ozozozd 5mo ago
    I think they’re pointing out that maintainers would not care to continue. You know, for some people the word _community_ doesn’t mean “my free developers.”

embedding-shape 5mo ago

> this is such a disrespectful move towards the huge amount of contributors who invested time and effort to learn the project and make it better. What? How? You contribute to projects run by others with the understanding that others run the project, is this not the default assumption others have too when contributing to FOSS? Is it disrespectful if my proposed feature was merged, but then later was removed because the maintainer just didn't want the feature anymore? In my mind, pretty clear it wouldn't, I'm only a contributor after all, not the maintainer or the person running the project.

asciimoo 5mo ago
> Is it disrespectful if my proposed feature was merged, but then later was removed because the maintainer just didn't want the feature anymore? No, the big difference is that the described scenario does not require getting familiar with a new 1M LoC codebase written in a different language to be able to continue contributing to the project.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  For who? What you say is true for everyone who doesn't know Rust (before Zig), and not true for everyone else, same as it always is been, for every single FOSS project out there. So it's disrespectful because before you could contribute, but because of the direction of the project, you no longer can? Does that also means it'd be disrespectful to make projects more complicated and complex, because maybe someone who contributed initially don't know these new concepts, so introducing those would require this individual to learn about those things? All of this still sounds like entitlement to me. Open source literally isn't about you, let people run their projects as they so wish, them making choices they think are better isn't disrespectful to anyone else, you're not forced to having to contribute to any FOSS projects.
  - asciimoo 5mo ago
    > For who? What you say is true for everyone who doesn't know Rust (before Zig), and not true for everyone else, same as it always is been, for every single FOSS project out there. Even if you are fluent in rust, it is going to require significant efforts to contribute to a new 1M LoC codebase. > Open source literally isn't about you, let people run their projects as they so wish, them making choices they think are better This is so far from the reality. The power of open source is coming from the contributors. Contributors are the most valuable assets of an open source project - without them most of the free tools you use would be significantly worse - including bun. The reason my open source projects got somewhat successful is the community that formed around the projects. And, it is hard to create a community when you give contributors no chance to participate in the projects direction, especially in such a critical decision that has enormous consequences.