7 ms·

Those problems are partly attributable to Zig itself. If the project accepted AI-assisted contributions, this controversy might never have happened. Completely

by r2vcap 2mo ago

Those problems are partly attributable to Zig itself. If the project accepted AI-assisted contributions, this controversy might never have happened. Completely shutting out one side of the industry and taking a dogmatic position is not helpful, especially for a pre-1.0 language that is still relatively immature. Now the Zig community is attacking one of the largest and best-known codebases ever built with the language. Anthropic’s motives are clearly promotional, but even so, I would not choose Zig for any project.

vga1 2mo ago
I'm on the same page with you that their AI stance is probably harmful for them -- but I think they wrote those as a reaction to the contributions from Bun and others. So your implied timeline is not entirely correct.
- r2vcap 2mo ago
  Nobody should feel insulted simply because a project decides to port its codebase to another language. It is a technical decision, not a personal attack. Zig’s response has been a serious mistake. The TypeScript team ported the TypeScript compiler and language service from TypeScript to Go for TypeScript 7.0. Did anyone interpret that as the team insulting TypeScript itself? I certainly did not.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - vga1 2mo ago
    I don't know, sometimes programming language choices seem to be in the realm of theology, not computer science or engineering. What is more hurtful than somebody else making wrong religious choices?
  - shimman 2mo ago
    Yes, why would Zig respond seriously to a company that has proven to have utter complete disdain towards humanity? Why would anyone be upset that a company is ruining workers lives, poisoning innocent civilians, and being used to kill school children? That's just not fair!
  - skydhash 2mo ago
    They don’t care about the switch and it seems they’re actually happy with it. What they care about is the implied messaging that Zig has issues that the rewrite in Rust solved. Andrew highlighted that they had bad engineering practice, the rewrite did not solve anything, and they invested a lot of engineering with Rust to try getting things to work, engineering effort they have not invested in Zig.
  - Orygin 2mo ago
    > Did anyone interpret that as the team insulting TypeScript itself? No because Go and Typescript have wildly different use cases, and they explained in details the rationale for migrating the compiler, and why Go versus Rust. Their rationale makes sense, and did not throw Typescript under the bus (obviously).
dgellow 2mo ago
> Completely shutting out one side of the industry and taking a dogmatic position is not helpful, especially for a pre-1.0 language that is still relatively immature. It is useful, you just have different goals in mind than the Zig leadership. Zig shared their detailed reasoning for that decision, which is mostly about the development and protection of the community
Orygin 2mo ago
> If the project accepted AI-assisted contributions, this controversy might never have happened. Had I given my wallet to the thief, this controversy (me getting stabbed) might never have happened. This 100% was a way to getting back at Zig for not allowing their parent company's product, and a marketing move for Fable.

by r2vcap 2mo ago

vga1 2mo ago

I'm on the same page with you that their AI stance is probably harmful for them -- but I think they wrote those as a reaction to the contributions from Bun and others. So your implied timeline is not entirely correct.

r2vcap 2mo ago
Nobody should feel insulted simply because a project decides to port its codebase to another language. It is a technical decision, not a personal attack. Zig’s response has been a serious mistake. The TypeScript team ported the TypeScript compiler and language service from TypeScript to Go for TypeScript 7.0. Did anyone interpret that as the team insulting TypeScript itself? I certainly did not.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- vga1 2mo ago
  I don't know, sometimes programming language choices seem to be in the realm of theology, not computer science or engineering. What is more hurtful than somebody else making wrong religious choices?
- shimman 2mo ago
  Yes, why would Zig respond seriously to a company that has proven to have utter complete disdain towards humanity? Why would anyone be upset that a company is ruining workers lives, poisoning innocent civilians, and being used to kill school children? That's just not fair!
- skydhash 2mo ago
  They don’t care about the switch and it seems they’re actually happy with it. What they care about is the implied messaging that Zig has issues that the rewrite in Rust solved. Andrew highlighted that they had bad engineering practice, the rewrite did not solve anything, and they invested a lot of engineering with Rust to try getting things to work, engineering effort they have not invested in Zig.
- Orygin 2mo ago
  > Did anyone interpret that as the team insulting TypeScript itself? No because Go and Typescript have wildly different use cases, and they explained in details the rationale for migrating the compiler, and why Go versus Rust. Their rationale makes sense, and did not throw Typescript under the bus (obviously).

dgellow 2mo ago

> Completely shutting out one side of the industry and taking a dogmatic position is not helpful, especially for a pre-1.0 language that is still relatively immature. It is useful, you just have different goals in mind than the Zig leadership. Zig shared their detailed reasoning for that decision, which is mostly about the development and protection of the community

Orygin 2mo ago

> If the project accepted AI-assisted contributions, this controversy might never have happened. Had I given my wallet to the thief, this controversy (me getting stabbed) might never have happened. This 100% was a way to getting back at Zig for not allowing their parent company's product, and a marketing move for Fable.