> More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys
This writing really does not reflect well on Zig. If you have technical issues with Github, fine: cite them. But leave ad hominems like "losers" and "monkeys" out of it.
> Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include:
> - Using welcoming and inclusive language.
> - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
> - Showing empathy towards others.
> - Showing appreciation for others’ work.
The CoC is not there to protect the community, but to protect all the bad actors and give ammunition to attack the good ones.
Happens every time, the maintainers who add CoCs to projects have no problem being an ahole to others.
Update: I know some people love their CoCs, but answer me this, how is this kind of childish name calling allowed and still online, if what I wrote above is not true?
Where you born 30 minutes ago to not have realized yet that people are not infallible, are subjects of emotions and contradict themselves all the time?
It’s just a document.
However, in this case, the presence of the code of conduct has made it trivially easy to point out the language as wrong in a way whoever wrote this for Zig cannot refute.
It’s working exactly as it should.
Holding the powerful to the law is unfortunately, a separate issue to whether it's worth it to have written rules/laws in the first place.
A CoC could still be better than no CoC, even if it fails to rein in abuse from the top.
The fact that this behavior, which would violate most CoCs ever written, came from the top tells you everything you need to know.
Ah the good old days!
A CoC is still a useful communication tool. Guidelines are useful to have.
A good CoC for most projects is: “tl;dr: don’t act rude or illegal”, followed by a detailed explanation of what is rude or illegal, ending with “project maintainers have final discretion”.
I'm sharing these facts not to "credential-dump", but to underscore: This comment comes from compassion, not condescension.
Vague CoCs bug me because they're well-intentioned landmines. Take "don't be an asshole"; it could mean "act in good faith" (why not just say that?), or morph into "don't seem condescending" based on who's reading.
Pair that with commitments to safe spaces for neurodivergence, like autism (where social cues in text can be a foggy maze), and you've got a recipe for unintended clashes.
An earnest comment misfires, gets flagged as jerkish, and boom: escalation via subjective enforcement.
I've flagged this before: good faith-vague inclusivity can ironically exclude through feelings-based policing, which is how communities often roll anyway. So, why not tighten rules for clarity? Swap "don't be an asshole" for "assume good intent and clarify misunderstandings." It'd make safe spaces safer for all, autists included.
I don't doubt I'll get a tirade of "how can you call Autistic people assholes" just like always, totally missing the point on purpose.
Also, when people cause social issues, they should be reprimanded referencing specific parts of the CoC, and in most cases given warnings or opportunities to recover. For when the person causing the issue genuinely isn't aware what they're doing is wrong and can learn to be tolerable; and even when the person is completely bad faith, for unaware bystanders to learn what's right and wrong.
Diagnosed autistic people aren't the only ones who suffer from unwritten social cues. Also people from other cultures, e.g. where rudeness is considered more acceptable.
Luigi Mangione shot the UnitedHealthcare CEO December 4, 2024 and had an anti-capitalist manifesto, was he center right?
What about Elias Rodriguez (leftist activist, Israeli Embassy Staff Shooting)?
Michael Reinoehl (antifa) who shot Aaron Danielson?
"No Kings" Vance Boelter who shot two politicians?
"Anti-ICE" Joshua Jahn who killed two detainees and wounding an agent in the Dallas ICE Facility Sniper Attack?
US leftists are the same murderous closeted communists as they are everywhere else.
They assassinate people (see recent cases), perform terrorist attacks (peaking at ~500 (!) bombings in 1971), form mobs to socially ostracise people they don't agree with, distribute brazen propaganda in mass media and subvert every organisation they join.
My point is that Democrats and Republicans disagree on social policies, but on the economical side they are very close to each other. They are two shades of capitalist policies. Other countries have parties that are simply non-capitalist - that is the "left".
You want to work with people and the group says "yay and this is how we will work together" you do that or go away. This is entirely separate to stating a universal truth such as "Microsoft product blows because they do not care", "Oracle sucks" or famously "You can't anthropomorphise Larry Ellison"
Did Linus ever blow-torch community volunteers or did he get the pip purely with big corp submitting paid trash for their own purposes? He seems to cop a fair bit himself from people saying thou shalt not...
The standards differ. Microsoft is going to be ok guys.
Do you think there is a chance these hypothetical engineers who care actually want this kind of thing said publicly? And said as poetically invictive laden as possible? The rationale being that they might use such sentiment to get management to see the danger and /start/ caring about product quality?
I've never worked for microsoft. In my experience when product goes into quality decline, rubbish management is >90% of the reason. How futile is fighting that? How futile is fighting it for github? Does github matter in general? My own use is so limited it doesn't directly matter to me. Indirectly it might well do.
That would be easily 90% of GitHub.
To me saying 'product X is so bad, it's coded by monkeys' is not really a personal insult to a specific coder, but a decrying of a company.
Hell, if I would be a github engineer I'd probably agree.
Part of maturing and growing up, for me, was realizing that there are really very few people who truly deserve scorn and disrespect[1]. Those I disagree with politically, mostly think they’re doing the right thing and they think that if people only understood, they’d change their tune (and that’s basically what I think of them). Those “big companies” like Microsoft, Atlassian, etc, their incentives line up - and literally must line up - in a fashion where they make software that frustrates many users constantly. It really isn’t malice or incompetence - no one, from the intern that wrote some snippet of JS on GitHub dot com, to Satya Nadella, is either intentionally phoning it in nor waking up in the morning asking himself, “how can I frustrate the efforts of people out there?”
And anyway, because most people are trying their best, regardless of how the outcomes line up to affect my life and my interests personally, really do not deserve my scorn and derision. If I were in their situations, very little if anything would actually change. So spouting insults at these people who I don’t know, and whose roles I don’t really understand, is really not a mature, productive, nor fair thing to do.
[1] if you are curious I’d say murderers, etc. dominate that group.
Murdering can be done very well without ever having to touch weapon.
Are we talking about scientists here too or just those who give orders?
Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon and many things can be used for widespread harm.
What if you are working on something that can be used both ways? Spread good and death?
The way github develops is steered by microsoft-the-company and not so much by it's individual employees. A company, especially such a huge one, is not to be trusted and can (should) be made fun of.
> And anyway, because most people are trying their best, regardless of how the outcomes line up to affect my life and my interests personally, really do not deserve my scorn and derision.
The fact that most people are "trying their best" doesn't mean that their goals and interests can't be selfish, or that their actions can't negatively impact others. Particularly people who pursue positions of power, in politics or corporations, often treat others with hostility. And unlike most hostile people, it's these high-rank individuals that have the capability to impact millions of people.
So while I agree with your overall sentiment that well-intentioned people don't deserve my scorn and derision, the real world has taught me that governments and corporations often abuse my trust, my rights, my freedoms, and my quality of life. And for that, the least I can do is speak freely about how I feel about them as people on an online forum. I'm sure that my actions have practically zero impact on their lives, unlike theirs on mine.
It's not really for anybody's sake except my own, because I'm the one who has to sit with a mind full of shit at the end of the day and I'm just going to wear myself down. Nobody who matters is gonna read any of the bile I could write and change who they are, after all.
> This document contains the rules that govern these spaces only:
> The ziglang organization on Codeberg
> #zig IRC channel on Libera.chat
> Zig project development Zulip chat
doesnt seem to include the zig page!!
so no, it does not violate CoC
Not sure it does. Right there in the same link you posted:
This document contains the rules that govern these spaces only:
The ziglang organization on Codeberg
#zig IRC channel on Libera.chat
Zig project development Zulip chatAlso, the fact that the website is not covered by the CoC makes it worse, since the leadership is excluding themselves from their own engagement rules.
Luckily, no one cares about my (or your) opinions on that matter because, as far as I can tell, neither of us have contributed anything to Zig.
I don't particularly care for either Zig or Github, but...
they do precisely cite the technical issues. That snippet links to a Github discussion comment https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/3792#issuecomment-3...
(reproduced below)
"The bug in this "safe sleep" script is obvious from looking at it: if the process is not scheduled for the one-second interval in which the loop would return (due to $SECONDS having the correct value), then it simply spins forever. That can easily happen on a CI machine under extreme load. When this happens, it's pretty bad: it completely breaks a runner until manual intervention. On Zig's CI runner machines, we observed multiple of these processes which had been running for hundreds of hours, silently taking down two runner services for weeks."
"I don't understand how we got here. Even ignoring the pretty clear bug, what makes this Bash script "safer" than calling into the POSIX standard sleep utility? It doesn't seem to solve any problem; meanwhile, it's less portable and needlessly eats CPU time by busy-waiting."
"The sloppy coding which is evident here, as well as the inaction on core Actions bugs (in line with the decay in quality of almost every part of GitHub's product), is forcing the Zig project to strongly consider moving away from GitHub Actions entirely. With this bug, and many others (severe workflow scheduling issues resulting in dozens of timeouts; logs randomly becoming inaccessible; random job cancellations without details; perpetually "pending" jobs), we can no longer trust that Actions can be used to implement reliable CI infrastructure. I personally would seriously encourage other projects, particularly any using self-hosted runners, to look carefully at the stability of Actions and ask themselves whether it is a solution worth sticking with long-term when compared with alternatives."
----
I agree that the writing in the blog post is more colorful than precise, but sanitizing every bit of expression dulls the internet. Humans invented language for a reason.
https://github.com/actions/runner/pull/3157/files
Is : doing something unusual in GH actions?
while (time() != timeout) {;}
The fixed loop is:
while (time() < timeout) {;}
Given that Github Actions is quite popular, probably wasting large amount of energy.
But probably good at generating billable Actions minutes.
One can only hope that not many people use sleeps to handle their CI race conditions, as that itself is also not a proper fix.
Only task to do before lining up investors is how can I weave AI into our product?
Maybe a more serious fix is something like "read -t $N". If you think stdin might not be usable (like maybe it will close prematurely) this option won't work, but maybe you can open an anonymous FD and read from it instead.
while wait && [[ $SECONDS -lt $1 ]]; do
read -t $(($1 - SECONDS))
done <><(:)
{ wait; read -t $1; } <><(:)
Interestingly, it does reap on a blocked read without -t, so potentially the behaviour on -t would be considered a bug rather than as-designed.
There's also a loadable sleep builtin supplied with bash which calls into the internal fsleep() so should be reliable and without forking.
Sleeping is an OS scheduling task. Use the OS syscall that does that.
As is suggested on the Github issue that Microsoft has been ignoring for half a year.
Where do you draw the line, then? Is a racist screed acceptable to you as long as the following paragraph references technical issues correctly?
The language in the blog post is insulting. Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet. Certainly you've made mistakes in your code before...or are you saying you've always written flawless code without errors?
These codes of conduct always seemed a bit superfluous to me, but after reading comments like these I can totally see why they are necessary.
To me all those mean the same thing, except the latter is more flavorful and makes my eyes less likely to glaze over.
> Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet.
Er.. so? Why should anyone be allowed into a position of responsibility where their code impacts millions of people if they can't handle the tiniest bit of strong feedback? It was, after all, a pretty egregious bug.
> Certainly you've made mistakes in your code before...or are you saying you've always written flawless code without errors?
I've definitely made mistakes, and also accept that my output might have on occasion been "monkey-esque". I don't see what's insulting about that; we are all human/animal.
And to many others, the difference is that one is informative, the other is likely to turn them off of the author and project forever.
I noticed that you never answered my question. If this is acceptable to you, where do you draw the line? If you can answer that question, maybe you'll be able to see the flaw in your argument.
Which is absolutely fine. It's their project, their website. If they can't be colorful on their own website, where else can they be! If it turns off some people, I'm sure the author is aware of the risk and happy with that risk.
I, for one, find this kind of colorful language refreshing. Everyone trying to be politically correct makes the internet a dull place.
Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it?
I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries!
All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where I set my boundaries has no bearing on what Andrew should write on their website.
If Andrew alienates people by his writing, it's his decision, his action, his consequences that he has to deal with. How does it matter where I draw the line?
That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#safe-constructive-only
> I do but I decline to share it here
The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist - it's an attempt to find a common denomiator so that it can help foster a community where people can feel included without feeling like they are being attacked or insulted.
Yes, he did. It is funny. I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it. If you are bothered so much by this violation, file an official report on their issue tracker.
> The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist
When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist. Thank you very much. I am not morality police. Neither are you.
My morality applies to myself. Andrew's morality applies to himself. But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker. If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them. That'd be fair.
Yeah, it’s hilarious! Calling someone a monkey is such a clever and thought provoking insult!
> I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it
If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?
> When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist.
I really don’t think you know why CoC’s exist, because you are chastising people when they point out a legitimate violation (e.g. being the "morality police").
> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point
Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.
> If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them
No thank you. I’m not actually offended by what he said, I just find it weird when people rush to his defense on this.
I'm not confused by anything. That was a rhetorical question. I continue to respond because there are other things that I care about and I have things to say about that. I don't care about what style or tone or words Andrew choses on their website. But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly. So that's why I continue to respond.
> Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.
Credit where credit is due. If you make good points I agree with, I'll certainly say that.
> Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.
Because there are other points of yours I don't agree with.
Must a person always 100% agree or 100% disagree? Can a person not 10% agree and 90% disagree? The latter is happening here.
This appears to be a strawman. You already admitted he violated the CoC - so he is in the wrong here.
I'm not sure what else there is to disagree with - that's been my assertion from the beginning.
If he wants to write childish stuff on his own website that is not covered by the CoC, that's his choice. I'm also free to express my opinion on that, but I never implied that he shouldn't be able to write whatever he wanted on his own personal blog.
I didn't say that. This is what I said -
"But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker."
Emphasis: "may", "I don't know if", "If you know more".
> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point
Since you’ve just proven yourself to not be arguing in good faith, this will be my last response to you.
But you chose to reply to my outdated message although at the time you were replying my message said that I wasn't sure whether the CoC applies or not.
I don't care much about the language used. I neither intend to defend it nor criticize it. But I do care about people trying to be morality police. That's why I am spending multiple comments here.
> It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.
Yes, the reason is that my line applies to myself. My line doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to Andrew. So my line, which is a personal and private matter for me, isn't something I want to share here. It is irrelevant when talking about the words Andrew chose on his website. That's the reason. It's a simple reason. Don't overthink it!
One of the unfortunate side effects of the internet is that it really brings out the asshole in a lot of people.
I really want to pull on that thread more, to see how far you’ll go to defend an indefensible position, but I won’t.
> This document contains the rules that govern these spaces only:
> The ziglang organization on Codeberg
> #zig IRC channel on Libera.chat
> Zig project development Zulip chat
I'm not the morality police. Nobody should be. I'd still take the article on its technical merits. As a random example, if Satoshi's paper called people using the banking system cattle, I'd still continue reading it.
> Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet
It would be absolutely fine, nobody is named specifically. He wasn't like Josh Examplemann working on Actions is a piece of shit that botches any feature he touches. Nobody is going to remember a blog post and forever hold anyone that worked on Actions to an unhirable status. And personally, I think it would be good for people to feel some shame for having implemented a feature in such a terrible way. It's not like they were told by their managers to commit these the way that they did. Calling into the sleep binary wouldn't even be more work.
Whoever is behind the new React Start Menu in Windows
along with whoever is responsible for the Chrome Web Environment Integrity
along with whoever is behind the design of OSX Tahoe
along with anyone who is working on Windows Copilot that screenshots your screen
should be ashamed of themselves. The more articles that do that, the better. They are not doing good.
With that said, it's also not correct to claim that line folk have no influence at all. I don't believe that you can blame any individual since they may have stood up against something bad being put in the product, but they're still part of a collective group of people that built a bad product.
Unless you want to call them just that incompetent. I assume they'd complain about that label too.
In short: No it's not "the product", the people building it are the problem. Somehow everyone working in big tech wants all the praise all the time, individually, but never take even the slightest bit of responsibility fro the constant enshittification they drive forward..
Ad hominem happens when someone undermines the argument based on the speaker's background. Here they are not undermining any argument. They're just name calling. This is name calling, not ad hominem.
I get frustrated with tech all the time! I get it. Grr when Actions feels so irritatingly misbehaved…
But how you handle or fail to handle your frustration demonstrates the competence of your character and speaks volumes of what you’d be like to work with.
If your workplace has a lot of name calling, consider the possibility that it may be unusually toxic, and the possibility that you’re making it toxic.
The specific error they are criticizing is extremely egregious, akin to builder declaring a house without a roof complete. “failing and deserving to be called a monkey” is a criticism being levied against a 0/100 level mistake, not a mere minor mistake as you are claiming.
While it might be desirable to use less colorful language, it is frankly challenging to express the sheer level of grossly incompetent organizational ineptitude on display here in a reviewed and delivered product actively causing negative customer impact for literal years which is trivially fixed and yet has been ignored.
Customers of Github should be infuriated that Github gleefully foists such utterly defective software upon them. It is hard to get that across in dispassionate writing.
> Your argument is lacking nuance, declaring that the criticism being levied here must be a simple binary.
That isn't my argument. I am arguing against the idea that there is an "objective" threshold of failure where, once crossed, it becomes acceptable to call people names.
> Customers of Github should be infuriated that Github gleefully foists such utterly defective software upon them. It is hard to get that across in dispassionate writing.
See, while it has its bugs, I don't see a major problem with GitHub as a software product (setting aside the monopoly concerns). I encourage passionate discussion, but calling people names doesn't communicate passion; it communicates impatience. It suggests you don't have the patience to actually make a case for something you're supposedly passionate about, so you're choosing a shorter, more aggressive form instead.
These are people for God's sake. Empathy!
> These are people for God's sake. Empathy!
From my perspective your take and actions in this thread is itself completely devoid of empathy.
The reason for colorful language breaking through professionalism is because there is real human emotion behind those words. Real pain and suffering, lost time in the life that will never be regained, an ever widening bald spot from the stress. That type of thing yearns to be expressed in a way that generic corpo speak is by design unable to communicate.
Your response to these emotions is to simply stick your head in the sand(aka refuse to read the blog post)? Worse yet, even without that context, you are here trying to convince those around you to also stick their heads in the sand?
To dream up scenarios where theoretical someones in a giant faceless corp might maybe possibly be offended? Instead of trying to listen and understand the person already in front of you who has actually been offended?
Again everything is a matter of perspective, but from mine your comments severely lack the empathy you supposedly call for.
I can't speak for others. But if I am screwing up as badly as GitHub is, I'd rather someone calls me a loser and monkey for it. It's like someone splashing ice cold water on my face and showing me the reality. It's going to be very uncomfortable, yes. But I'll learn from it and try not to screw up so badly again. I find this kind of natural outburst refreshing really.
Though best case scenario, the people working on these features agree and can point their managers to the post as an example of growing discontent. I doubt it’ll have an effect, though. GitHub is now under the AI division at Microsoft.
Shrug.
If he were berating a specific person, I might flag it. Berating Github and Microsoft as an organization? Nah.
Given that CEOs seem to now live in a Post Shame Reality(tm), I'll allow bringing some shame to the situation.
This reminds me of when Linus Torvalds would lose his shit now and then and launch gratuitous personal attacks at people who had made mistakes. Comment sections would be filled with folks laughing at Linus’ latest victim. “Couldn’t be me, I would never make this mistake”. Even Linus admits he was wrong to treat people this way and he’s taken time off to work on himself and become a better person. But there is still no shortage of people who enjoy seeing pain inflicted on others, nor people larping as a younger Linus.
I'd like to be treated this way if I am doing really stupid things. If I am doing the kind of stupid things GitHub is doing, I'd rather someone call me out as a monkey so that I know I f-ed up.
I know calling "monkey" is not professional but my expectation of professional treatment stops at my office with my colleagues and at a few other places. I don't expect the whole world to be professional to me. I can take some bloke on the internet calling me a monkey if that helps me to introspect and make things right.
If they're nice about it and choose professional words to tell me I'm being stupid, that's great. But if they cannot and they call me "monkey", I'll take that too. I'd rather have the feedback in whatever words they can muster than not have the feedback at all.
"A complete lack of empathy" is a bit of a stretch, no? Calling someone a monkey is fairly lighthearted, while getting the point across that maybe they should take stock of the awareness of their abilities.
> This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for.
> Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry. The above is basically a long-winded way to get to the somewhat painful personal admission that hey, I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely.
And he did. And the project he heads is better for it. You don’t need to call people names to run a project well. Linus learned that. It’s time that other people who failed to grow up learn it too.
Calling people monkeys and losers is just shitty. It doesn't achieve anything, it's divisive, and it's often counterproductive because it creates cultures of fear.
...for one of the largest of most toxic IT companies in the history if IT?
Spare me, please. Microsoft is the last legal entity in the universe you should feel empathy for.
No, they did this when they joined Microsoft, not me. You don't get to be "an actual person" when you're paid by Microsoft to write Microsoft code for a Microsoft product.
People like you terrify me.
No, I'm asking if Microsoft emploee code gets to be judged as a work of a person instead of a corporation, and the answer is a resounding NO.
Nobody cares what Microserfs do in their personal life. (I'm sure they're great people, some of my closest relatives were Microserfs too.)
Did you read the issue at hand?
This is not average people making "mistakes". This is severe incompetence at every layer of decision making, and a complete lack of care for quality work. If you want to be mad at someone for being unfair, be mad at the manager of these people for putting them in a position they are grossly unprepared for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Could you review the guidelines of this website and follow them?
On the other hand Zig is often regarded as the fastest executing modern programming language. They have earned the ability to complain about performance like no one else. The article cites precise issues they have with GitHub.
Furthermore JavaScript, when not written by monkeys, is extremely fast which further qualifies their complaint. For example I have a large SPA that loads in the browser from across a network in around 0.065 seconds and achieves full rendering and state restoration in about 0.135 seconds. If I drop the largest one feature from that SPA I can get full rendering and state restoration in about 0.08 seconds. Your typical JavaScript developer, on the other hand, struggles to copy/paste code into a JSX template someone else defined with no idea how to measure performance. To me that’s what’s offensive.
IT at higher ranks is about people. This post disqualifies Zig as an org.
But I agree on the Devon Zuegel praise. Most of the good devs and managers are gone. Only brian for the git SHA-256 migration is still there I think, though he got no time finishing it.
I've heard people call other people "monkeys" before in a work setting. it's never good. Fact is, you don't need to call anyone names or insult them.
The takeaway for me is that the Zig project is led by people who are extremely immature and toxic. I simply don't trust any decision these people make. If you can't bring yourself to respectfully disagree with other human beings, if you resort to calling names and insults targetted at developers because of bugs, then i don't trust you to not backdoor your own code, or do something harmful to those who rely on your work because of some drama, spat or activism.
Even if actual political activists did this it would be unacceptable. If you called Netanyahu a monkey because of his Gaza genocide, most people who are pro-palestine will try to cancel you! Not because they think highly of him, but because it hurts the cause more than it helps.
Andrew: It seems you don't respect your own self or your community enough to set an example of decorum and civility. You've made Zig a platform for your own personal shitposting. Please do better!
Do you have an example or two of poor decisions that push you away so strongly?
The important observation for me is that he didn't know where to draw the line, and this is regarding people he doesn't work with, unknown/random Microsoft employees. Will he cross the line if someone he does know and trust does something he disagrees with? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the bar is high when it comes to trusted software like programming language compilers.
I wish Zig all the success, but only if it's community and the tech community as a whole can hold it's leadership accountable instead of making excuses and defending him like this. It's ok to tell people you admire and respect they screwed up.
I don't defend Linus either, but I don't consider him calling someone a monkey or dehumanizing people either. If he has, please send me the lkml archives, I've been on the fence with going full on Apple anyways :)
FWIW I've never programmed a line of code in zig and I don't know who this developer is.
All I got from it was "seems like GitHub is starting to deteriorate pretty hard and this guy's fed up and moving his project and leaving some snark behind".
Your reading of the current political climate is very different to mine.
homo sapiens is an animal species.
immature and toxic : welcome to every big tech , you don't want part of them either, right ?
Having been in that situation before, if I even get a hint that I would be treated this way, I'm backing out of any interview. I won't say for no amount, but for no amount they would consider reasonable compensation would I think it's worth it. People commit suicides over this stuff. This isn't a joke. Life is too short. I mean just seeing other people treated this way is horrible on its own. I can't believe people defend this stuff. People need to learn to be ashamed again.
It seems to have decreased in the last 10 years but calling us code-monkeys was a common derogatory reference to the software department. I didn't like being compared to a monkey randomly bashing a typewriter but that's how things were.
It was better than what everyone called HR.
Either way, can we at least agree that it is an insult to those people at a personal level, it attacks who they are instead of what they did?
Like i mentioned, I've had myself/coworkers compared to monkeys in the same way. I didn't think much of it at first, but coworkers were really demoralized and kept mentioning it, and it coincided with all sorts of other hosilities from people in power.
My whole goal here wasn't to demonstrate some internet rage, but to do my part in making sure other people don't get treated like crap, especially in their work place. If this was at my work, I'd probably just quietly look for other places to work at, because I'd be afraid for my job. In this case it's not like Microsoft employees can publicly respond in like to Andrew and not lose their jobs either. I see someone with some level of authority and a public figure abusing that to harass others.
There is no asshole-badge that is granted to people when they achieve positions of authority, a louder voice or great success in life. Those of us who can implement some sort of an adverse response to this behavior, must.
Either way, I like linux but I've avoided operating systems like freebsd and openbsd for less, so I agree. I've said plenty enough against Linus when he did lose his temper and started cussing at people.
And to be clear, I consider people who defend him (and in this case Andrew) far worse of an individual than the original offenders. People mess up, they're led astray by being put in positions of leadership and authority. That I get, and that's why i'm calling him out here. If he was random person, I wouldn't have bothered. But the enablers and defenders are the real problem. I hope you're not one of them. If you are, I consider you people responsible for every single work place bullying and toxic environment out there. People do great things without being classless uncivilized bullies.
Is this blog post in a work setting? Oh my. You should probably run to HR and report unprofessional behavior!
Oh wait.
If Andrew considers Zig a professional software to be used in production environments, then this is a indeed a professional setting. If not, then it is a hobby project run by immature/whiny people like you, so let's just ignore it and talk about more serious people/projects.
and as of when was GitHub known for its snappiness?
I could switch on the dev console in the Browser, and see which one loads the largest amount of Javascript, but I'd be disappointed with both.
Could someone elaborate what that JS framework is? Is this recent?
I think GitHub was built on Rails, and the UI has changed relatively little in the past few years.
Hackernews seems to consistently believe that you can be terrible as long as you're polite.
> Putting aside GitHub’s relationship with ICE…
If you actual actually wanted to put that aside, you could have…put it aside.
(Plus it being weird on a substantive basis. Selectively blacklisting specific government agencies…that’s just not a sustainable approach.)
Every service has rules but are the rules clear and consistent enough that organizations can reliably use the service without worrying they’ll be terminated.
So what? Obviously you won't respond to all the permutations, so can draw only some red lines.
> without worrying they’ll be terminated
Yes, you can have some principles without increasing these concerns
That's what I meant by not scalable/sustainable.
Elitism is far from the worst character trait unpaid code janitors can be expected to have.
I'm not going to touch the political parts. But my main point is that the migration itself is obviously not well done, he isn't even migrating issues nor migrating perks for sponsors, splitting the community and attention apart. You could even say that he's critical of people who keep using github sponsors. In my view the text is implying that you are hurting ziglang if you keep using this thing that is a liability for ziglang... oh the horror of giving someone money in a way he doesn't like. People like this forget that contributors are doing free work for them too, it's not just one way. Everything that creates friction for them is real work you just caused them.
You're probably better off for it to be honest.
But it then loses the emotional momentum and stops being colorful!
Not
'open source developers posting childish rants vs no open source developers'
they’d be hacking on shit over at Mozilla (or similar - likely for more money) right?
Read more about contributing to open source, who contributes, under what circumstances.
For example: are you familiar with Linus Torvalds?
Sounds like a great thing compared to the sanitized corpo bullshit from nowadays. Microsoft bought themselves into OSS with github and each project has a bland CoC.
It’s pathetic. Even the github monkeys know deep down that this is wrong.
We're at the tail end of a long decline.
I mean https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/24317 wasn't that long ago.
Seems like the HN mob is just as capricious as the author in deciding who gets as pass or not.
It boggles the mind why people keep using Linus as an excuse to justify rudeness. Linus apologised, he recognised what he did for years was not OK, and took time off to reflect and become a better person.
> Seems like the HN mob is just as capricious as the author in deciding who gets as pass or not.
Are all the people who commented in that submission commenting on this one? No? Then it’s not the same group of people, and opinions are different. There’s no “mob”, HN isn’t a hive mind. If it were, you’d be part of it and agree.
A pity. Saw Zig as something rising but with this kind of toxicity, no thanks.
Don't get me wrong, it is a bit toxic. However, I feel like taking one comment in a larger article and blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic.
One person decided that something wasn't for them. How is that in the same league as someone in a leadership position being unprofessional?
And yet the context is extremely important.
> I didn't factor this in
That's how you get to false equivalencies.
No, you're just putting something into it which doesn't matter to me. Not a false equivalency.
> blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic
Making a false equivalency of the supposed toxicity of the commenter's post and the toxicity displayed in the article.
You can just take the L; you don't have to be performatively obtuse about it.
Having low patience is a quirk of our nerd culture, and now that the woke season has ended, it seems to be going back to how it has always been!
GHA in particular is a hot mess, I’m as surprised as a decade ago that anybody is using this crap. IMHO it’s bugs as a service kind of product, and the bugs start at the core design with the ‘pretend yaml but actually an unholy mix of shell, js and json’ language.
> This is my reality. I am not an emotionally empathetic kind of person and that probably doesn't come as a big surprise to anybody. Least of all me. The fact that I then misread people and don't realize (for years) how badly I've judged a situation and contributed to an unprofessional environment is not good.
> This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for.
> Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry. The above is basically a long-winded way to get to the somewhat painful personal admission that hey, I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely.
> I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately.
And he walked the walk. He became better after that. Linux is a better project for it. But I suppose it did influence a generation of people in software who looked up to Linus and thought this is the correct way to treat people you perceive as beneath you.
Linus is better now but the behaviour is ingrained into so many people. They now “tell it like it is”, are “straight shooters”, don’t have time to be “politically correct” and so on.
It’s important to keep in mind that “common” doesn’t mean “right” or “positive”. Lots of things, such as CFCs in aerosol spray cans and radioactive elements in household items used to be common.
I’m not saying that’s what your argument is—on the contrary, I get the feeling you’re making a statement and not justifying it—but still think it’s an important point to not forget.
> I was watching a YouTube video by Casey Muratori where
Do you remember what video it was? That’s a bit disappointing and I’d like to see for myself to gather context and tone. From all I’ve seen from Casey I’d expect gentle bashing of languages but not groups of people. Though I mostly have seen Casey on his own teaching or being interviewed one-on-one, I get the feeling he might be different in podcasts.
Following now.
Sheesh.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=code%20monke...
Anyway, yes, "infinite monkeys on typewriters" seemed to be the relevant meaning of "monkeys" here.
Isn't that the unfortunate status quo? At least hard requirement for JS, that is.
Google's homepage started requiring this recently. Linux kernel's git, openwrt, esp32.com, and many many others now require it too, via dreaded "Making sure you're not a bot" thing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44962529
If anything, github is (thankfully) behind the curve here - at least some basics do work without JS.