Live data from Hacker News

Open-source Zig book

zigbook.net

151–160 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#151

>Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. Zig is just C with a marketing push. Most developers already know C.

That tagline unfortunately turned me off the book, without even starting to read.

I really don't need this kind of self-enlightenment rubbish.

What if I read the whole book and felt no change?

I think I understand SoA just fine.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#152
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also Brainmade: https://brainmade.org/

The name seems odd to me, because I think it's fine to describe things as a digital brain, especially when the word brain doesn't only apply to humans but to organisms as simple as a 959 cell roundworm with 302 neurons.

Also the logo seems to imply a plant has taken over this person and the content was made by some sort of body-snatched pod person.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get st…

These posts are getting old. I had a discussion on some other submission a couple of weeks back, where several people were arguing "it's obviously AI generated" (the style btw was completely different to this, quite a few explicitives...). When I put the the text in 5 random AI detectors the argument who except for one (which said mixed, 10% AI or so) all said 100% human I was being down voted and the argument became…

Check out the other examples presented in this thread or read some of the chapters. I'm pretty sure the author used LLMs to generate at least parts of this text. In this case this would be particularly outrageous since the author explicitly advertizes the content as 100% handwritten.

> Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it?

Personally, I don't want to read AI generated texts. I would appreciate if people were upfront about their LLM usage. At the very least they shouldn't lie about it.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#154
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does it matter? Because AI gets things wrong, often, in ways that can be very difficult to catch. By their very nature LLMs write text that sounds plausible enough to bypass manual review (see https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s... ), so some find it best to avoid using it at all when writing documentation.

Humans get things wrong too. Quality prose usually only becomes that after many reviews.

That’s fine. Write it out yourself and then ask an AI how it could be improved with a diff. Now you’ve given it double human review (once in creation then again reviewing the diff) and single AI review.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#155

So many comments about the AI generation part. Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you. I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all. Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)

It matters because, it irritates me to no end that I have to review AI generated content that a human did not verify before. I don't like being made to work in the guise of someone giving me free content.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#156
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.

Most people aren’t great writers, though (including myself). I’d guess that if people find the “not X but Y” compelling, they’ll overuse it. Overusing some stylistic element is such a normal writing “mistake”. Unless they’re an extremely good writer with lots of tools in their toolbox. But that’s not most people.

I find the probability that a particular writer latches onto the exact same patterns that AI latches onto, and does not latch onto any of the patterns AI does not latch onto, to be quite low. Is it a 100% smoking gun? No. But it’s suspicious.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#157

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

I wish AI had the self-built irony of adding vomit emojis to their sycophantic sentences.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#158
post #151

>Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. Zig is just C with a marketing push. Most developers already know C.

That tagline unfortunately turned me off the book, without even starting to read. I really don't need this kind of self-enlightenment rubbish. What if I read the whole book and felt no change? I think I understand SoA just fine.

It is also just such a supremely unziglike thing to state.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#159

So many comments about the AI generation part. Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you. I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all. Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)

>That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you.

No it isn't. My TI-83 is deterministic and will give me exactly what I ask for, and will always do so, and when someone uses it they need to understand the math first or otherwise the calculator is useless.

These AI models on the other hand don't care about correctness, by design don't give you deterministic answers, and the person asking the question might as well be a monkey as far as their own understanding of the subject matter goes. These models are if anything an anti-calculator.

As Dijkstra points out in his fantastic essay on the idiocy of natural language "computation", what you are doing is exactly not computation but a kind of medieval incantation. Computers were designed to render impossible precisely the nonsense that LLMs produce. The biggest idiot on earth will still get a correct result from the calculator because unlike the LLM it is based on boolean logic, not verbal or pictorial garbage.

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...

Re: Open-source Zig book

#160
post #143
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Still better than just nagging.

My statement refers to this claim: " I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. " The hypocrisy and entitlement mentality that prevails in this discussion is disgusting. My recommendation to the fellow below that he should write a book himself (instead of complaining) was even flagged, demonstrating once again the abuse of this feature to suppress other, completely legitimate opinions.

I'm guessing it was flagged because it came off as snark. I've gone ahead and vouched it but of course I can't guarantee it won't get flagged again. To be frank this comment is probably also going to get flagged for the strong language you're using. I don't think either are abusive uses of flagging.

Additionally please note that I neither complained not expressed an entitlement. The author owes me as much as I owe them (nothing beyond respect and courtesy). I'm just as entitled to express a criticism as they are to publish a book. I suppose you could characterize my criticism as complaints, but I don't see what purpose that really serves other than to turn up the rhetorical temperature.

Post reply on HN