Andrew Kelley (Zig creator) replied to this on lobste.rs
https://lobste.rs/s/js25k9/is_zig_s_new_writer_unsafe#c_ftgc...
https://lobste.rs/s/js25k9/is_zig_s_new_writer_unsafe#c_ftgc...
Writing not one but two blog posts takes time and effort, moreso when it includes investigation and examples... the posts are not just low effort "this is crap" rants (and they even blame themselves, even though it's clear from the posts that there are documentation/discoverability issues).
What if the poster doesn't feel knowledgeable enough to contribute code? (as shown by his first post title, "I'm too dumb for...")
If that's not collaborating I don't know what it is...
The response IMO is constructive and invites the blog post author for further discussion.
> Kinda wish the author would attempt to collaborate rather than write stuff like this [...] but, whatever, it’s their blog so they can do what they want.
...feels like passive aggression. In particular the "stuff like this" (like what?) and "but, whatever" felt very unnecessary and the whole "I wish he'd collaborate on my terms" is IMO uncalled for.
I'm glad you made the note about that part though, I agree with it and we can always do better.
Disclaimer: I'm a zig fanboy and do all my hobby stuff in it
Make blog posts, it's great!, but if you don't think you're the expert then they'll go a lot farther for everyone if you put 5% of the work of doing so into engaging with the community about it for additional insights first. That's a fair note to make, though I agree the ending could be less passive aggressive about those who don't want to engage with the community.
Blog posts are collaboration (1). I did get the sense that Andrew doesn't see it that way. (And for this post in particular, and writegate in general, I have been discussing it on the discord channel. I know that isn't an official channel).
My reasons for not engaging more directly doesn't have anything to do with my confidence / knowledge. They are personal. The linked issues, which I was aware of, are only tangentially related. And even if they specifically addressed my concerns, I don't see how writing about it is anything but useful.
But I also got the sense that more direct collaboration is welcome and could be appreciated.
(1) - I'm the author of The Little MongoDB Book, The Little Redis Book, The Little Go Book, etc... I've always felt that the appeal of my writing is that I'm an average programmer. I run into the same problems, and struggle to understand the same things that many programmers do. When I write, I'm able to write from that perspective.
No matter how inclusive a community you have, there'll always be some opinions and perspectives which get drowned out. It can be intimidating to say "I don't understand", or "it's too complicated" or, god forbid, "I think this is a bad design"; especially when the experts are saying the opposite. I'm old enough that I see looking the fool as both a learning and mentoring experience. If saying "io.Reader is too complicated" saves someone else the embarrassment of saying it, or the shame of feeling it, or gives them a reference to express their own thoughts, I'm a happy blogger.
Also, blogs have been used since forever to give constructive feedback to other projects, even other programming languages. So I don't understand why it is suddenly not okey for the Zig project.
If youre too young to have context for blogging then it’s not your fault. The intent of “blogs” is generally indeed advertising now a days.
The members of the Zig project are free to reach out to the author!
When you create a project in public people will write about it, tweet about it, complain about it, etc (if you’re lucky!).
You said, "anybody [...] can write whatever they want". "They are under zero obligation ...". "Members of the Zig project are free to reach out ..."
Do you not realize that you have not at all addressed the point about what is the most productive way to criticize?
All you have done is go off about people's rights, freedoms, and lack of obligations. But nobody actually said "People shouldn't be able to post critical blog posts" or "People are obligated to participate by filing issues or contributing code to open source". So what was the point in saying this? Do you think people believe anything contrary to what you said?
> Collaborating would be contacting the Zig team through one of the many channels available and asking questions, offering suggestions etc.
> So what was the point in saying this? Do you think people believe anything contrary to what you said?
Setting the bounds of valid community collaboration to "people can post on their own blog as long as I like it otherwise they're being mean" is not a set of values I subscribe to, so I felt it was worth it to articulate that.
"They are under zero obligation to create bug reports, file issues, check in on a chat channel, or contribute in any other way to an open source software project that does not employ them." Correct, and absolutely fine, but not collaboration.
"Writing blog posts is a perfectly reasonable and normal community behavior." Correct, and absolutely fine, but not collaboration either.
"The members of the Zig project are free to reach out to the author!" Yes, but it's much easier, more efficient and direct for the author to have reached out to the Zig team.
"When you create a project in public people will write about it, tweet about it, complain about it, etc (if you’re lucky!)." Yes, but, once again, this isn't collaboration.
Just hide all issues people using your project stumble upon in internal mailing lists and project a polished facade.
This reads like an issue anyone can stumble upon with the answer being ”you’re holding it wrong”.
I want to find that from a quick search rather than wading through endless internal discussions.
He's "polishing a pig"? He's hiding "all issues" with Zig in internal mailing lists to "project a polished facade"? ALL?! You got all that from one sentence saying he wishes the author took a different approach?
Alright, fine. Here's my analysis of your character and lifelong patterns of behavior based on your first two sentences:
You just want to tear down everybody who is trying to do good work if they make any mistake at all. You look for any imperfection in others because criticizing people is the only approximation of joy in your existence. You are the guy that leaves Google reviews of local restaurants where you just critique the attractiveness of the women who work there. You see yourself as totally justified and blameless for your anti-social behavior no matter the circumstances, and you actually relish the idea of someone being hurt by you because that's all the impact you could hope for.
If that's not accurate to who you are, well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that's just how it reads to me.
Not sure where the tirade came from?
I am talking about the person responding here trying to decry OP for not hiding away his issues in internal communication channels.
If the author had raised the issue on the actual channels that the Zig project requests people use, and then the Zig team had been dismissive or rude, then, yeah, for sure go writing blog posts. I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to grasp. If you have an issue, raise it with the people who can fix the issue first. Don't immediately go screaming from the roof-tops. That behaviour is entitled, immature, insincere and unproductive.
Nobody is screaming here except for you.
Damn, Andrew Kelley really come across as a dickhead when taking any bit of criticism about his language, often painting them as bad actors trying to sabotage the language.
This isn't the first time he repeats this behavior.
EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45119964 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43579569
That should have been removed and it would have been totally reasonable.
Edit: Oh actually, the author has another blog post titled "I'm too dumb for Zig ...". With that context, it makes sense and I agree it's a reasonable response. I'm sure other readers like me didn't know that context though.
From my plain reading he didn't take time to understand the proposal before providing feedback. That's fine as far as being busy or miscommunication goes, it happens, but after it was pointed out he never apologized or offered more constructive feedback. Which again is fine, but I'd expect a technical leader to not isolate the maintainers of their most critical dependency. Clearly he gave them a terrible first impression.
He only said he wishes the author would have taken a different approach. So what? Why does everyone have to jump in and start psychologizing or essentializing Andrew based on one paragraph?
Why does one paragraph have to say so much about who he is as a person? Even if it did piss him off for a few hours, so what? He's not allowed to wish someone took a different approach?
I tend to think Andrew Kelley is a great guy, not just technically but as a person. And I think that because I've listened to him talk for dozens of hours. I can guarantee you that that one sentence he wrote is not the beginning of a character assassination campaign against the author of this blog.
He made Zig because he wanted to put something good into the world and improve the state of software. How about we include that in our analysis of Andrew's character? I'll leave it to the reader to consider whether the multi-year full time dedication to Zig should be weighed more heavily than a personal feeling he had for two minutes that he expressed respectfully without attacking anyone's character.
> My friend - it's not personal. I care about you. I actually do value your opinion. I'm interested in your thoughts and feelings. I want to make you happy. I'm sad that I can't serve you better with my open source project. I want to. I wish I could.
> I'm hustling. I'm playing the game. I'm doing what it takes to make this thing mainstream and a viable, practical choice for individuals and companies. If you talk shit about Zig in public, I'm going to fight back. But I respect you. I see you. I understand you. I don't hate you. I would literally buy you a drink.
https://andrewkelley.me/post/open-letter-everyone-butted-hea...
edit: np :)
I have nothing against him at all or his language (in fact I hope it further replaces C dominant position in embedded systems and low level programming), I just wish he toned down his passive attitude against criticism acting in good faith.
I'm not even sure that it's criticism. I read it as a genuine open question.
At least in my experience, asking questions like this through GitHub issues or a mailing list are met with negativity. I don't want to post through a channel where I'll get a snide, terse response from a maintainer. I'd much rather post to my blog audience, who I find to be generally knowledgeable and friendly enough to already be following me. And if I found an answer, I'd post about it and explain what I learned in the process, linking from the existing post.
In a lot of ways, I think Andrew's response is exactly the sort of flavor of reply that I would have expected no matter what channel the question had been posed through, and that's exactly why I wouldn't have gone through those channels if I was the author. His reply didn't answer the question aside from implying it's maybe an issue, nor did it invite feedback.
In any case I've seen how communities treat the authors of important projects that touch their livelihood or habits to be unsurprised an author may lose it at times.