[embedding-shape]

> This entire article is publicly and personally attacking him for choosing a different product

The article seems to be happy about the switch to Rust, that point is re-iterated multiple times in the article, and seemingly they were both awaiting Bun moving away from Zig and wishing for it.

[jdw64]

I feel the same way as you do. Honestly, even though it was well-packaged, I did find it a bit rude. But since I don't know their personal relationship, it's not really my place to interfere.

[conartist6]

The people who steal with AI and give no credit to the actual creative forces (that they are stamping out) are the fucking rude ones.

I just return to them the kindness they show me when they say, "You made this?? I made this!!"

[jdw64]

I understand your anger too. AI did steal open source knowledge, and I agree with that part.

But separately from that, I think it's a bit unfair to talk about the people associated with it in such a dismissive way.

In reality, humans aren't purely rational beings, and I can understand why the Zig philosophy and the Bun manager who joined the AI side might not have looked good from that perspective. But I think that's a separate issue from the emotions involved.

[embedding-shape]

> AI did steal open source knowledge

It's really sad to see my fellow FOSS enthusiasts adopt this very strange vocabulary from the anti-pirate people. No, no one has stolen anything, the knowledge is still out there. No, you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it. Literally the point for me and others is that what we put out can be used by anyone for anything, that's why we use FOSS licenses in the first place.

[em-bee]

you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it

yes you can if you do not honor the license that the original was released under.

that's why we use FOSS licenses in the first place

some FOSS licenses are intended to insure that the code remains open even after modification. that's used by anyone for anything under the same license.

[account42]

And even permissive licenses generally require that you at least credit the original authors.

[embedding-shape]

Yes, fair, I agree; follow the license, that's the single both legal and social expectation.

[conartist6]

Fine, they're leeches. My problem is that if everyone behaved as selfishly as they do, there would be no more nice things for anyone.

[embedding-shape]

> Fine, they're leeches.

But of the points is that no-one owes anyone anything, if you use my code I don't owe you support or anything else and by you using it, you owe me nothing either, no money, effort or anything else. Sure, if the maintainer want, it's nice when people fix the issues for the maintainer, as long as they want it, or that people and companies donate when maintainer set that up, but in no way should that be an expectation just because the creator slapped a FOSS license on what they made public. Don't want people to (mis)use, criticize, mangle, transform or copy what you've created? Don't use those licenses then.

This whole "no warranties" and its related intentions goes both ways, intentionally.

[orangedog]

I just think you're fighting a losing battle. I'm pretty apathetic about it because I've never wanted to do anything but give away my stuff anyway. It only has value in my/your head most of the time.

I think how deeply you care about this and the way you castigate other people is unhealthy and it is critical for your own well-being that you come to terms with it.

[conartist6]

It's not just in the past, and my anger isn't just about what was taken, but the community-destroying use it is being put to: Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime, it's to sell the idea that coding is dead.

When he made it his job to sell that narrative, he declared war on me. It should not surprise him or anyone else that I am going to take the war right back to his doorstep.

[jdw64]

There are some points I understand rationally but find hard to agree with emotionally.

What I understand rationally is the claim that AI is destroying your garden and community. It's an undeniable fact that intellectual property and the associated disruption are happening. That's simply true.

But what I find hard to agree with emotionally is that personal attacks aren't always justified just because of that. I've also been affected by AI. I had to create a new homepage because the traffic to my technical blog dropped due to AI. Of course, there are also benefits. As a non-native English speaker, it opened up a new path for me to access good programming resources, which I couldn't easily get before. So I have both affection and resentment.

Still, I understand your feelings. Because for you, the emotional anger of having something you built destroyed without any compensation is real. Our situations are different.

That said, I don't think that necessarily justifies attacking individuals.

People often think of blogs and homepages as places to write 'personal stories.' But once they're made public, they carry responsibility. And Andrew Kelly is a public figure—his words spread easily. So there needs to be a certain level of responsibility when writing.

In any case, I respect your perspective

[conartist6]

Again just to make the nuance clear: nothing I've built has been destroyed. What makes me red hot angry is the message that there's nothing left to build -- that the world will soon belong to the people who just mindlessly copy (Jarred and his ilk). They have been quite crystal clear in their message to me: not using AI makes me worthless garbage to be taken to curb, a snack for anyone using AI.

You see how many times people can tell YOU that you are worthless garbage before you start thinking, "I'm going to punch back at the people who punch me." 20? 50? 100 times you get punched in the face before you start to consider self-defense? Cause I've read that piss-poor message 50 times: "you will be replaced."

[alwaysbeconsing]

> Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime

Most likely too late for edit, but Jarred is who work for Anthropic, not Andrew.

[zeratax]

in what way were they team members?

[jdw64]

fixed it.

[iknowstuff]

The post has a lot of incel "well you're ugly and noone wants you anyway" energy

[embedding-shape]

I think the article kind of gives you the energy you enter the reading with.

My take away was closer to "This is what we tried, this is the sentiment they gave back, then this is what happened, here's what I think of Jarred's way of working, glad they now use Rust, good riddance", but then I also apply this slightly unholy strategy of applying charitable reading when reading personal blog posts, and I worship neither of these people, so might be why we got slightly different takeaways.

[enraged_camel]

>> I think the article kind of gives you the energy you enter the reading with.

No, not really. I know nothing about either of the people involved, and after reading the article I came away with an extremely negative opinion of the author. They are using their position as the leader of a language to attack and denigrate someone who used that language for years, donated to it, and eventually decided to move on.

[iknowstuff]

You’re not concealing your jabs at me very well. This comment reads just like the post lmao, no wonder you enjoyed it

[embedding-shape]

I'm not trying to conceal anything, nor did I say anywhere that I enjoyed the blog post either. With those reading abilities, no wonder the two of us got very different takeaways from the post itself.

[frollogaston]

There are mixed messages. This part might've been added on later in the conclusion: "While I resent Jarred for making Bun into an embarassment for Zig, ..."