2 ms·
> 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 Z
by Aurornis 4mo 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 4mo ago[deleted]
- metoobruh 4mo ago[flagged]
- ksec 4mo agoNo 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 4mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48891496
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Aurornis 4mo agoBut 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?
- ksec 4mo agoI am struggling to even understand what are they trying to achieve? Or do they need a dozens of lessons on basic PR. Especially this is coming from VP of community. As of this moment, even with all the new evidence being provided on Bluesky / mastodon, it doesn't amount to anything.
- jraph 4mo agoIt's the "Bun is better in Rust" section which is misleading, where most things could have been done in Zig as well with a comparable amount of work (if we don't count the rewrite itself). This section can also give the impression that the LLM rewrite itself brought those improvements, which it didn't. Nor the LLM rewrite nor Rust in itself brought these improvements, extra work did. The fuzzing thing also does looks bad and nothing was refuted: just by reading the bun post one could think they've been fuzzing for a long time, but it started only a few months before the rewrite, which makes it almost irrelevant: the result never shipped, or only for a short time. The whole thing looks like this: technically correct so hard to criticize because people can tell you "well no, the post doesn't say this!", but deceitful, with important omissions.
- socialcommenter 4mo agoKelley's blog post reads as follows: > The post implies you were diligently fuzzing your Zig code, while during our calls the Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything. That's not compatible with saying that Kelley made the misleading claims. Bun told him they were not fuzzing. If they brought receipts later that indicate they lied, what should we be left to believe?