Comment by manish_gill

2 days ago

Why are we so eager to dismiss the very personal experiences of Andrew - someone who envisioned and developed Zig from the ground up? It is entirely within the realm of possibility that what he describes here did transpire. He had bad experiences with one of the more popular projects within the ecosystem - something that he hoped would become successful but the incentives were clearly misaligned.

When in doubt - look at the incentives. And the incentives here are fairly obvious. On one hand we have an open source project that is focused on quality and craftsmanship, and on the other hand we have the world's biggest AI company.

I am not anti-AI. But things like taste and quality matter. And I trust the creator of Zig more than the creator of Bun when it comes to said taste.

5 comments

manish_gill

Reply
bloody-crow  2 days ago

> But things like taste and quality matter. And I trust the creator of Zig more than the creator of Bun when it comes to said taste.

Having read both articles I'm in the opposite corner. I found Andrew's personal ad-hominem filled emotional post distasteful and Jarred's purely technical and filled with praise of Zig well written and in good taste.

  • krupan  2 days ago

    But it wasn't full of praise for Zig. It specifically pointed out that his project written in zig was full of memory safety bugs, and said that there was no way to get around that if the project stayed with zig. It's ludicrous!

    • fnands  1 day ago

      He never said impossible, just hard.

      But how is this news? Memory safety bugs are one of (if not the) main source of bugs in C/C++ and also Zig, and Rust's main claim to fame is that it makes it easy to catch these issues at compile time. I feel his criticisms of Zig are fairly uncontroversial.

      1 reply →