4 ms·

The second thing is not an ad hominem, it's talking about what he did or how he did it, not who he is.

• ribelo 3mo ago
  Casting aspersions without proof, even if it's something everyone knows, is in poor taste and ad hominem. I've never heard a bad word about Jaredd before, so Andrew seems more like a stinky person to me right now.
  • speedster217 3mo ago
    There's a direct quote in the article from Jaredd talking about poor work/life balance
  • anon7000 3mo ago
    There are two direct quotes in the article. The first is from Jaredd saying he works 90 hour weeks. The second is from Jaredd/his new company saying if you care about work/life balance, don’t work at this new company. So that’s definitely not an ad hominem. The other stuff maybe, I’m not familiar enough.
• vopi 3mo ago
  “An Ad hominem refers to when a speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself” It’s definitionally an ad hominem against Jared. If he stuck to why he thought it was bad for Bun to do this, I would be more sympathetic.
  • ackfoobar 3mo ago
    > stuck to why he thought it was bad for Bun to do this Quite the opposite. "When Jarred announced the Rust rewrite, we were ecstatic." > It’s definitionally an ad hominem against Jared. Who Jarred is, as a CEO, definitely has an impact on how the company develops software - how Zig is used. And the argument is that Zig is used badly in Bun. Without that context, I, as a reader, would have to actually read through a lot of code to be convinced of that point.