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

My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

andrewkelley.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#441

Post by conartist6 »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #431
conartist6 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value competence above all else, and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence. I wouldn't claim he's lying because I have no first-hand knowledge to base such a claim on. I just think his whole persona is about selling the idea that "you don't need to look at the code anymore". I would have a hard time calling that a lie because I think he really believes it. It does mean that I…

> I value competence above all else This is very beginner energy lol. Are you possibly a teenager? > and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence. Your username name is conartist6....

lolol you're just gonna die inside when you find out that such a piece of shit as I am owns... well, as I say, you'll find out ;)

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#442

Post by vopi »

mpalmer wrote: post #144
sarreph wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: > he was essentially groomed from a young age > It's one thing to choose a poor work-life balance for oneself; a different thing entirely to demand it of others > Jarred was a stinky manager

The second thing is not an ad hominem, it's talking about what he did or how he did it, not who he is.

“An Ad hominem refers to when a speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself”

It’s definitionally an ad hominem against Jared. If he stuck to why he thought it was bad for Bun to do this, I would be more sympathetic.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#443

Post by ModernMech »

dpatterbee wrote: post #326
ModernMech wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he’s being completely sincere in this attempt to assassinate this person’s character. I say this as someone who before this day regarded Kelley as a role model. Now I see him in the same category as a Musk like character. Don’t blame “unmasked neurodivergence” for this, plenty of neurodivergent people can communicate effectively and professionally to a wide audience without attacking someone’s professional ch…

>> I think he's being completely sincere in this attempt to assassinate this person's character. So that's a no, you won't make the attempt to engage with it with any other frame of mind? >> Now I see him in the same category as a Musk like character. Do you not see this as an overreaction? Andrew writes one (perhaps overly) blunt article about someone who publicly attempts to tarnish his project's reputation and you…

> you won't make the attempt to engage with it with any other frame of mind?

I told you, I engaged with it with the frame of mind that the author is a role model to me. My conclusion having read the words was that this was an intentional snipe.

People are calling this honest, but I consider it deeply dishonest to make the litany of personal attacks that he did while trying to pretend "I actually don't have any personal criticisms of Jarred".

Either Andrew isn't being honest with his audience, or he's not honest with himself. We can leave that as the most charitable framing. Either way it's just not true.

> you view it the same as the worst living human

I didn't say that. I only make the comparison in that they are both emotionally driven to say rude and mean things when they feel attacked.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#444

Post by dminik »

dpatterbee wrote: post #428
dminik wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from a cultural background that is considered very direct and blunt, I can say that there is a rather fine line between being direct and being an asshole. This post devolves into a personal attack one sentence in. There was no reason to go into Jared's life at all to begin with. The entire post doesn't need to exist at all if you're confident that Bun leaving will have zero or even positive impact. Why tur…

If you view that first sentence as a personal attack I'm not really sure what response I can make here. As a sentence it almost says nothing at all. 'When Jarrad started he gave off a real "starting" vibe'. Also I learned nothing about Jarred's life from this post, so I don't understand that point. That he lives or lived in San Francisco I guess, and didn't go to university?

Well, first off, it's literally the first sentence of a post which is ~62% about Jared, ~26% about the rewrite itself and 10% closing thoughts. It also sets up Jared as a beginner who apparently never learned.

Again, this post never needed to say anything about Jared. It looks weird to pull him in in literally the first sentence. It really shows what you're actually writing about.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#445

Post by vopi »

miyoji wrote: post #357
andrew_ wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the loss of network effect.

I have never once in my life cared about where a programming language kept its source and I think if anyone is using that as a basis for decision-making, they are truly a moron.

You’re telling me you would be as likely to contribute to a project hosted in CVS as compared to git (and on GitHub)?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#446

Post by dpatterbee »

dminik wrote: post #444
dpatterbee wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you view that first sentence as a personal attack I'm not really sure what response I can make here. As a sentence it almost says nothing at all. 'When Jarrad started he gave off a real "starting" vibe'. Also I learned nothing about Jarred's life from this post, so I don't understand that point. That he lives or lived in San Francisco I guess, and didn't go to university?

Well, first off, it's literally the first sentence of a post which is ~62% about Jared, ~26% about the rewrite itself and 10% closing thoughts. It also sets up Jared as a beginner who apparently never learned. Again, this post never needed to say anything about Jared. It looks weird to pull him in in literally the first sentence. It really shows what you're actually writing about.

This blog post about Jarred never needed to say anything about Jarred? What on Earth does that mean? It is a response to a blog post written by Jarred, about actions taken by Jarred, and yet you think Jarred shouldn't have been mentioned.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#447

Post by embedding-shape »

simonw wrote: post #377
embedding-shape wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You want to see him address being "a stinky manager", having "beginner energy", choosing to take VC as opposed to "a solid living via crowdfunding", or "already writing slop well before he had access to LLMs"? Those are all opinions where arguing about them isn't going to be productive. Countering the accusation of "an outright fabrication" on the other hand is worthwhile because it's a claim that can be countered. I…

[flagged]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#448

Post by embedding-shape »

conartist6 wrote: post #364
embedding-shape wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fine, they're leeches. But of the points is that no-one owes anyone anything, if you use my code I don't owe you support or anything else and by you using it, you owe me nothing either, no money, effort or anything else. Sure, if the maintainer want, it's nice when people fix the issues for the maintainer, as long as they want it, or that people and companies donate when maintainer set that up, but in no way should…

Again that behavior is legal but antisocial

Again, I disagree, it's following the social expectations if anything.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#449

Post by dminik »

dpatterbee wrote: post #446
dminik wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first off, it's literally the first sentence of a post which is ~62% about Jared, ~26% about the rewrite itself and 10% closing thoughts. It also sets up Jared as a beginner who apparently never learned. Again, this post never needed to say anything about Jared. It looks weird to pull him in in literally the first sentence. It really shows what you're actually writing about.

This blog post about Jarred never needed to say anything about Jarred? What on Earth does that mean? It is a response to a blog post written by Jarred, about actions taken by Jarred, and yet you think Jarred shouldn't have been mentioned.

It's not really titled "My Thoughts on the scumbag Jarred Sumner" though, is it? Nor does Jarred's post even mention Andrew by name.

Should Jarred's post have mentioned how Andrew kept bikeshedding Bun code style and how he always felt superior about others?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#450

Post by mathisfun123 »

conartist6 wrote: post #441
mathisfun123 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I value competence above all else This is very beginner energy lol. Are you possibly a teenager? > and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence. Your username name is conartist6....

lolol you're just gonna die inside when you find out that such a piece of shit as I am owns... well, as I say, you'll find out ;)

> well, as I say

Do you often quote yourself?

Post reply on HN