If you don't intend to write misleading stuff that makes Zig look bad when you leave and if you avoid ghosting the Zig foundation in scheduled meetings you had with them, I suppose you should be good.
What misleading stuff? Makes Zig look bad how?
The posts I read were appreciative to Zig.
The only “misleading” piece of either blog post that I recall was the Andrew Kelley claim that Bun wasn’t fuzzing, which was easily refuted by pointing to their fuzzing work.
If there’s something more then I’d like to see it, but every time I ask nobody can point to anything other specific.
When it gets to the point of having to click HN links to other HN posts which link to a reply in a thread on Mastodon which is splitting hairs over dates that are still prior to the accusation, you’ve lost me.
At best it seems like a more accurate outcome would be to update the original blog post with an edit saying that he meant they only started fuzzing recently and acknowledging the PR from 8 months ago?
As of this moment, even with all the new evidence being provided on Bluesky / mastodon, it doesn't amount to anything.
This section can also give the impression that the LLM rewrite itself brought those improvements, which it didn't.
Nor the LLM rewrite nor Rust in itself brought these improvements, extra work did.
The fuzzing thing also does looks bad and nothing was refuted: just by reading the bun post one could think they've been fuzzing for a long time, but it started only a few months before the rewrite, which makes it almost irrelevant: the result never shipped, or only for a short time. The whole thing looks like this: technically correct so hard to criticize because people can tell you "well no, the post doesn't say this!", but deceitful, with important omissions.
> The post implies you were diligently fuzzing your Zig code, while during our calls the Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything.
That's not compatible with saying that Kelley made the misleading claims. Bun told him they were not fuzzing. If they brought receipts later that indicate they lied, what should we be left to believe?
As for ghosting in meetings: sure, that seems bad. I would also be upset if someone did that to me. But you can state that factually without making it into a personal attack. It would even be more convincing.
I think you've missed the core thesis of the article. That post _wasn't_ technical writing. It was marketing disguised as technical writing.
Compare Cloudflare, the Google Chrome Security blog, etc.
I 100% agree with this.
I was just saying that you are probably less at risk of triggering people if you don't politely lie about stuff they make. I don't 100% agree with Andrew's response and I think he should apologize or explain more.
Presenting only one side of argument (only pros, no cons, etc.) is deceptive and dishonest. The fact that they were incredibly focused on build time in Zig and didn't even talk about it as a tradeoff going to Rust is very telling.
(The one reference I found to Rust’s compile times is them talking about how they had to split their Rust rewrite into 100 crates. A plain reading of this is the opposite of what you’re saying: they’re pointing out that Rust’s compile times are slower, but that this wasn’t an overriding negative.)
(Surely a relatively bland technical criticism of Zig - one that gets couched with praise - does not count as “a big fuss.”)
Literal quote (and again, appeared in the original article as well). Forking the compiler to try to get faster compile times is a significant effort that absolutely counts as raising a fuss.
I also don’t think that forking the compiler is a big fuss. Large companies do that all the time, to carry whatever patches they haven’t upstreamed yet (or can’t). It’s really not that big of a deal.