Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 952 posts

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#551

Post by LtWorf »

freehorse wrote: post #423
quantummagic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codes of conduct are perfunctory virtue signalling. Do we really need a unique set of "rules" posted on every project? They all sound like they were written by the same AI bot. That said, it's telling that the Zig leader can't even follow them. The rules should just be taken down.

Every org has a code of conduct and this is nothing new. How seriously it is taken in each case is a different issue. Code of conduct usually amount to some rules that say “don’t be an asshole to others”. Can’t see why this is problematic or “virtue signaling”.

You get penalised in some ways if you don't have a code of conduct. For example github will nag you about having one.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#552

Post by LtWorf »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #505
quantummagic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codes of conduct are perfunctory virtue signalling. Do we really need a unique set of "rules" posted on every project? They all sound like they were written by the same AI bot. That said, it's telling that the Zig leader can't even follow them. The rules should just be taken down.

Not even virtue, codes of conduct just signals leftist control over an organisation.

Just FYI github nags projects to have a code of conduct.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#553

Post by cyanydeez »

carlmr wrote: post #328
quirino wrote: post #35

> As a bonus, we look forward to fewer violations (exhibit A, B, C) of our strict no LLM / no AI policy, Hilarious how the offender on "exhibit A" [1] is the same one from the other post that made the frontpage a couple of days ago [2]. [1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/25974 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274

I'm not sure if this is advanced trolling at this point.

Is the. AI bubble just biolliinaires larping about their favorite dystopuan scifi?

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#554

Post by austin-cheney »

johnfn wrote: post #95

> it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the product have moved on to bigger and better things, with the remaining losers eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress. > 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 ho…

As a former JavaScript developer and current JavaScript hobbyist I see why this article’s language is deeply offensive. Most employed JavaScript developers absolutely suck at what they do and are highly sensitive about it. Everything other than praise is offensive. The surest indication of maturity is abandoning politeness in favor of evidence, empathy, or stronger arguments.

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.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#555

Post by nlitened »

atenni wrote: post #504
ttiurani wrote: post #352

Looking at these comments, it's painfully apparent how many think that being polite in your communication is more important than actually doing something. I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion. And don't even g…

> I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion. You’re framing it as either/or when it isn’t. You can push for real change and communicate like an adult. The two aren’t in conflict; often they reinforce each other.

> The two aren’t in conflict; often they reinforce each other

I’d think they _are_ inherently in conflict. Every person has 24 hours per day, and they can spend them on researching and doing what’s right or on reaching consensus. There is some mutual reinforcement to some extent (as it’s usually right to have a reasonable consensus on what’s the right choice), but beyond some basic level there’s always tradeoff.

And for programming language designers, I really appreciate when they make the right long-term choices even if I don’t understand initially why they were made.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#556

Post by joelreymont »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #549
joelreymont wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had $1000 in Claude credits and went to town. Yes, I made mistakes along the way.

The biggest mistake, AI or not, is dropping a 10K+ PR. 300~500 LOC is how far one should be going, unless they're doing some automated refactoring. E.g. formatting the entire StaticCompiler.jl source. This should've been a distinct PR, preferably by a maintainer.

I agree with you.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#557

Post by josephg »

noodletheworld wrote: post #499
nromiun wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So who is complaining that Zig leaving GH is somehow a problem? I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors. Zig is leaving GH for another provider. They did not make a better GH and fixed all the problems with it. You literally have to fill out a form to convince Codeberg that you need CI. I would take GH CI over that.

> I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors These aren't false claims. Thats my point. Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care. Yes, its better than having nothing , but honestly you have to be wearing blinkers not to see the decline rn.

> Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.

They certainly have enough money, but can they actually improve it? Who could step in? How? Do you think more hiring would help? Or would it make it worse?

Leadership could try and step in by force. But they'd have to undermine whoever is running github actions to do so. It would be a huge, risky political move. And for what? Are they actually losing customers over gh actions? I doubt it. I'm just not sure anyone cares to spend that much political capital to "fix" something that is arguably not that broken.

Big companies also simply can't fix stuff that's broken internally. Its not a money thing. Its a culture & politics thing. Its a leadership thing.

For example, does anyone remember Google Code? It was a github-like code hosting service that predated github by many years. Compared to github, it was terrible. When github came out, google could have rewritten Code from the ground up to copy github's better design and better choices. (Kind of like android did with ios). But they didn't. Github kicked their butt for many years. But nothing happened. They couldn't fix it. Now google code is basically dead.

Or why didn't Adobe build a viable figma competitor? Why didn't microsoft make a successful iphone or ipad competitor? Why didn't intel win the contract to make the iphone CPU? These aren't money problems. Its something else.

I've only heard stories of a couple leaders who had the force of personality to fix problems like this. Like Steve Jobs. And Elon Musk pulls some wild stunts too. Frankly, I don't think I'd like to work under either of them.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#558

Post by brodo »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #517
SoKamil wrote: post #9

> As a bonus, we look forward to fewer violations (exhibit A, B, C) of our strict no LLM / no AI policy, which I believe are at least in part due to GitHub aggressively pushing the “file an issue with Copilot” feature in everyone’s face. Also, the big part of that issue is people are incentivized to make their GitHub profile look good to have a higher chance of getting hired. Any non-mainstream platform is not as com…

> Also, the big part of that issue is people are incentivized to make their GitHub profile look good to have a higher chance of getting hired. Do people really get hired for bunch of PRs to random repos on GH or just think they will? My impression has always been that GH profile is completely ignored by both recruiters and interviewers.

And this kind of behaviour is a red flag for people who actually go digging through the GitHub profile. Like techical people in the last stages of a hiring process.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#559

Post by creato »

testdelacc1 wrote: post #289
johnfn wrote: post #95

> it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the product have moved on to bigger and better things, with the remaining losers eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress. > 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 ho…

God this entire thread is just people defending him as “a breath of fresh air” and “just using human language”. There is something in people that makes them enjoy seeing others belittled like this. A complete lack of empathy, because no one would like to be treated this way themselves, but are perfectly happy seeing others treated this way. One commenter justifies it by saying “if I’m fucking up, it’s ok to speak to…

> One commenter justifies it by saying “if I’m fucking up, it’s ok to speak to me this way”. Sure guy, we believe you.

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.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#560

Post by dijit »

armchairhacker wrote: post #490
quantummagic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codes of conduct are perfunctory virtue signalling. Do we really need a unique set of "rules" posted on every project? They all sound like they were written by the same AI bot. That said, it's telling that the Zig leader can't even follow them. The rules should just be taken down.

CoCs are useful at least for autists. They don’t have to be unique for every project. 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've got skin in this game: Grew up in UK's social services with undiagnosed mental health quirks; too "smart" for ADHD, too "social" for autism, per my assessors. Ended up in classes thick with neurodivergent kids, from non-verbal to quirky misfits. Plus, I've moderated an IRC community for 20 years, where text chats strip away nuance like a bad compression algorithm, leaving everything ripe for misinterpretation.

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.

Post reply on HN