4 ms·

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

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
        You haven’t answered it, and I can’t find a fair reading that would lend itself to that interpretation either. You can easily correct me by quoting the part of the Bun post that you find to be “making a big fuss.” (Surely a relatively bland technical criticism of Zig - one that gets couched with praise - does not count as “a big fuss.”)

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
        You haven’t answered it, and I can’t find a fair reading that would lend itself to that interpretation either. You can easily correct me by quoting the part of the Bun post that you find to be “making a big fuss.” (Surely a relatively bland technical criticism of Zig - one that gets couched with praise - does not count as “a big fuss.”)