4 ms·

If you don't intend to write misleading stuff that makes Zig look bad when you leave and if you avoid ghosting the Zig foundation in scheduled meetings you had

• woodruffw 3mo ago
  I think we can quibble about the Bun post’s factual claims. But I don’t think the post was deceptive or dishonest in its claims. Like most technical writing, it represents a vantage point. As for ghosting in meetings: sure, that seems bad. I would also be upset if someone did that to me. But you can state that factually without making it into a personal attack. It would even be more convincing.
  • skilning 3mo ago
    > Like most technical writing, I think you've missed the core thesis of the article. That post _wasn't_ technical writing. It was marketing disguised as technical writing.
    • woodruffw 3mo ago
      It’s marketing that is also technical writing. Most companies do this, and IMO we should prefer this over the alternative (which is corporate blogspam). Compare Cloudflare, the Google Chrome Security blog, etc.
    • stingraycharles 3mo ago
      It was way too technical to disqualify it as not being technical writing. Writing can serve multiple purposes.
  • jraph 3mo ago
    > But you can state that factually without making it into a personal attack. It would even be more convincing. I 100% agree with this. I was just saying that you are probably less at risk of triggering people if you don't politely lie about stuff they make. I don't 100% agree with Andrew's response and I think he should apologize or explain more.
  • Arainach 3mo ago
    > I don’t think the post was deceptive or dishonest in its claims Presenting only one side of argument (only pros, no cons, etc.) is deceptive and dishonest. The fact that they were incredibly focused on build time in Zig and didn't even talk about it as a tradeoff going to Rust is very telling.
    • woodruffw 3mo ago
      Are we talking about the same post? This is the one I’m talking about[1], and I can’t see where it’s claimed that Rust’s build times are better. Apologies if I’m missing it. (The one reference I found to Rust’s compile times is them talking about how they had to split their Rust rewrite into 100 crates. A plain reading of this is the opposite of what you’re saying: they’re pointing out that Rust’s compile times are slower, but that this wasn’t an overriding negative.)
      • Arainach 3mo ago
        You don't have to claim that they're better, but making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork - and then not talking about it at all in the Rust doc (where it's apparent to anyone who's used Rust that compilation there is guaranteed to be slower) is dishonest or at least massively hypocritical.
        • woodruffw 3mo ago
          Where are they making a big fuss?
          • Arainach 3mo ago
            I knew that LLMs had caused reading comprehension to tank, but I quite literally already directly answered that question - as did the original article under discussion here.
            • woodruffw 3mo ago
• Aurornis 3mo ago
  > If you don't intend to write misleading stuff that makes Zig look bad What misleading stuff? Makes Zig look bad how? The posts I read were appreciative to Zig. The only “misleading” piece of either blog post that I recall was the Andrew Kelley claim that Bun wasn’t fuzzing, which was easily refuted by pointing to their fuzzing work. If there’s something more then I’d like to see it, but every time I ask nobody can point to anything other specific.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • metoobruh 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • ksec 3mo ago
      No where did they show it makes Zig looks bad. And neither did any Reddit, HN, Twitter thread by a large have anyone said anything like that.
  • mi_lk 3mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891496
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • Aurornis 3mo ago
      But even the dates they’re pointing to as evidence of fuzzing in that post pre-date Andrew Kelley’s accusation that they weren’t fuzzing. When it gets to the point of having to click HN links to other HN posts which link to a reply in a thread on Mastodon which is splitting hairs over dates that are still prior to the accusation, you’ve lost me. At best it seems like a more accurate outcome would be to update the original blog post with an edit saying that he meant they only started fuzzing recently and acknowledging the PR from 8 months ago?