[preommr]

There are astute comments about the post's tone elsewhere in this thread[0]

But this killed my hopes for Zig.

The drama is fun, and Andrew is maybe even admirable in his earnest, but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project. I know that's boring and uninspired, but that's what I want my tech stack and it's management to be.

Also, maybe Jarred was a net negative, but bun was also a really big project using Zig, and the project leaving isn't as good for Zig as Andrew is making it seem. It genuinely seems he's putting a lot of priority on purity and ideology over just growth of the language. And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

[0] esp. nilirl.

[audunw]

I have the exact opposite impression. From everything else I’ve seen around Andrew and the Zig Foundation he is extremely professional and skilled with managing community. In fact I’d say the community and management of the project is Zigs biggest strength.

This blog post only reinforces this opinion. It is clear that the Zig developers has had huge issues with his relationship with Bun for a long time, and it seems from both Jarred and Andrew’s post that Andrew really put all those issues aside, in spite of his strong personal opinions, to maintain a professional and productive relationship as long as possible.

It’s only now that the relationship is broken (on Buns initiative) that he has taken the opportunity to vent a bit. And I’m really glad he did.

It’s similar to Linus. Sometimes Linus goes too far in his comments. But getting an occasional insight into people’s personal opinion is good, as long as it’s not at the cost of breaking a professional relationship.

[ventana]

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

I don't immediately see how much the seriousness of the project is related to the language the author chose in their personal blog post. It's similar to saying that Linux could not have become a serious project because of the way Linus communicated in his emails.

[nicce]

> It's similar to saying that Linux could not have become a serious project because of the way Linus communicated in his emails.

Linus being rude was actually contributing for Linux becoming a serious project. Because that changed the quality of the code and the seriousness of the contributions. If you were sloppy or did not do good job, Linus became rude. So there is a correlation, and this is an excellent demonstration how it goes to opposite direction. Whether it was professional or not, it correlated for the quality of the project. For that reason, it is not ad hominem.

[guardiangod]

Linus always backs up his insults with technical reasonings on why the other side is wrong though. You might not agree with his reasons, but at least he provided them.

[ipdashc]

A lot of people are defending this as similar to Old Linus, and while both (a) I kinda get it and (b) Linus stopped doing that because it was bad... At least when Linus did it, it was vaguely in the service of giving people a wake up call about their code quality so their future contributions are better.

Versus here, I'm not sure I see the point? I'm not up to date on this drama, but like, Bun has left the project/community. There's nothing lost from staying quiet or just going "okay, bye". Why is there a whole post about how shitty the guy is, what purpose does this serve other than dunking on him for leaving? It comes off as bitter and petty, not because it's wrong or the tone or whatever, but because there's no reason for it.

[ModernMech]

Yes, jerks love to use Linus’ success to justify being jerks.

[ventana]

Not sure where I justified anything. I just said that it's not related. You can be a jerk or not, and your project can be successful or not.

[ozgrakkurt]

He is understandably annoyed. It feels like you are making it a problem for people to have emotions and give signs that they have those emotions. He didn’t even write anything direct and it is on his personal blog

[nesarkvechnep]

In what way the article convinced you that Andrew Kelley is not professional enough for a serious project like Zig? Isn't his contribution to the language what's important?

[orangedog]

He's leading the community. Not having basic professional does indeed kill them vibe for some of us. When is he going to pile on somebody else he disagrees with?

[surajrmal]

The open source community is built up by many project leaders with unprofessional attitudes. Honestly I think a younger version of myself would have resonated with the post. I'm almost certain there are many folks who will see the post as a net positive for addressing the bun rewrite. Zig is full of people who think they are strong enough engineers to avoid needing tools to solve issues for them and the post largely says that bun was written by weak engineers and they were to blame for its problems which will resonate with the community.

[dpatterbee]

Zig's community is - bar none - the least toxic programming community I've experienced. People on this website (who have never witnessed a single Zig community interaction) love to read blogposts from afar and come to conclusions this way and that, but if they ever stopped to actually engage with the people involved they'd find out the truth quite easily.

[orangedog]

I have engaged with the Zig community. You're saying that people should not come to conclusions based on what they just read.=, from the founder nonetheless.

[nesarkvechnep]

Did Linus Torvalds convince you, with his history of outbursts, that Linux is done?

[orangedog]

He's turned that down over time and has said as much.

I figure taking the most successful project of the 90s and using that as a polestar for of newer projects who re trying to get and keep traction over other projects (see this thread and topic) is probably a bad idea.

It in fact is a great thing to learn from, not repeat the same errors.

[dpatterbee]

So you're saying your only singular experience with the Zig community is this one blogpost, and you've written 14 comments so far on here about it? What are you even gaining here?

[orangedog]

I've been using Zig for years. Is this not a discussion forum?

[throw16180339]

I wrote Zig off years ago after watching Andrew troll and make bad faith arguments. This rant only confirms that was the right call.

[Klonoar]

> People on this website (who have never witnessed a single Zig community interaction)

I'll take claims that you have no ability to make for $100, Alex.

[afavour]

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

I actually think this gets to, but steps over, the core objection: traditional "hacker" mindset vs VC "growth hacking" mindset.

> And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

Why? Why can't he create a language with exactly the kind of purity and ideology he wants, broader adoption be damned? Why must everything optimize for user growth and mindshare?

[geraneum]

> and the project leaving isn't as good for Zig as Andrew is making it seem

In this case, Bun was acquired by Anthropic. Leaving Zig is not necessarily out of merit. As much as they pretend it was.

[erichocean]

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

It hasn't stopped Rust's growth, so I doubt this is true.

Most people don't care about this kind of interpersonal drama unless it impacts the actual technology itself.

[casey2]

By what metric is bun a "really big project"? It seems to have less than 5 consistent contributors. It's not a very popular npm package there's just a larger focus on gaming github stats.

The usecase itself is js on the backend, seems unaligned with zig.

https://npmtrends.com/bun-vs-express-vs-is-vs-is-number-vs-t...

[zombot]

> priority on purity and ideology over just growth of the language.

If that's so, I find it OK. The maintainer(s) have the right, even the obligation, to make that choice. Growth alone is not a value, you have to be willing to pay the price for it.

[krater23]

> but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project.

Yes, I think you are totally right. I'm sure Linux would never be so big as it is without a maintainer that talks so professional than Linus Torvalds.

[em-bee]

linus torvalds was eventually told that his tone was not acceptable and that he needed to learn to tone it down. linux grew despite linus tone, not because of it.

[metoobruh]

Nah. It was because of it.

[27183]

> And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

Would you argue that Chez Scheme (to pick a random example) isn't a "serious programming language"? And I am sorry, but the assumption that "explosive growth" in the venture capital sense is somehow necessary for "success" is cancer.

[bel8]

> Would you argue that Chez Scheme (to pick a random example) isn't a "serious programming language"?

Commercially speaking? Absolutely not a "serious programming language" in this context.

If someone tries to implement a project using Chez Scheme, they better have agreat reason to not use mainstream boring language.

[27183]

I used to think like that, but I don't anymore. The most important thing about a project is the people who are working on it. Successful projects are built by small teams with deep expertise pulling together on a shared mission. If they want to use Chez Scheme, Ocaml, Haskell, or whatever else I trust their judgment.