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

Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 641 posts

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#201

Post by dannersy »

styanax wrote: post #145
brushfoot wrote: post #139

The edit history of the announcement is quite a ride: > [2025-11-27T02:10:07Z] 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 [1] > [2025-11-27T14:04:47Z] it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the…

On the previous HN article, I recall many a comment talking about how they should change this, leave the politics/negative juju out because it was a bad look for the Zig community. It would appear they listened to that feedback, swallowed their ego/pride and did what was best for the Zig community with these edits. I commend them for their actions in doing what's best for the community at the cost of some personal me…

I often find we don't appreciate enough people accepting their failures and changing their mind. For some reason I see the opposite: people respecting those who "stick to their guns" or double down when something is clearly wrong. As you say, the context matters and these edits seem to be learning from the feedback rather than saving face since the sentiment stands, just in a less needlessly targeted way.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#202

Post by Levitz »

jack_pp wrote: post #194
testdelacc1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least he edited it to something more palatable. I vastly prefer someone who can admit to making a mistake and amending what they said to someone who doubles down. The latter attitude has become far too normalised in the last few years.

Is political correctness necessary to have a thriving community / open source project? Linux seems to be doing fine. I wouldn't personally care either way but it is non-obvious to me that the first version would actually hurt the community.

>Is political correctness necessary to have a thriving community / open source project?

Not at all, but this reads like childishness rather than political correctness.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#203

Post by matheusmoreira »

mkornaukhov wrote: post #39

IMHO, the main advantage of github is that it is an ecosystem. This is a well-thought-out Swiss knife: a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system, convenient issues, as well as a well-formed CI system with many developed actions and free runners. In addition, it is best to use code navigation simply in a web browser. You write code, and almost everything works effortlessly. Having a sponsorship system is also great,…

> Having a sponsorship system is also great

They have zero fees for individuals too which is amazing. Thanks to it I gained my first sponsor when one of my projects was posted here. Made me wish sponsorships could pay the bills.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#204

Post by baq »

foldr wrote: post #191
baq wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competent developer wouldn't call gerrit an obscure tool.

This attitude sucks and is pretty close to just being flame bait. There are all kinds of developer who would have no reason to ever have come across it.

A competent developer should be aware of the tools of the trade.

I'm not saying a competent developer should be proficient in using gerrit, but they should know that it isn't an obscure tool - it's a google-sponsored project handling millions of lines of code internally in google and externally. It's like calling golang an obscure language when all you ever did is java or typescript.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#205

Post by vbezhenar »

kakwa_ wrote: post #167
jcmfernandes wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a well-formed CI system Man :| no. I genuinely understand the convenience of using Actions, but it's a horrible product.

Maybe I have low standards given I've never touched what gitlab or CircleCi have to offer, but compared to my past experiences with Buildbot, Jenkins and Travis, it's miles ahead of these in my opinion. Am I missing a truly better alternative or CI systems simply are all kind of a pita?

My issue with Github CI is that it doesn't run your code in a container. You just have github-runner-1 user and you need to manually check out repository, do your build and clean up after you're done with it. Very dirty and unpredictable. That's for self-hosted runner.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#206

Post by embedding-shape »

dannersy wrote: post #201
styanax wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the previous HN article, I recall many a comment talking about how they should change this, leave the politics/negative juju out because it was a bad look for the Zig community. It would appear they listened to that feedback, swallowed their ego/pride and did what was best for the Zig community with these edits. I commend them for their actions in doing what's best for the community at the cost of some personal me…

I often find we don't appreciate enough people accepting their failures and changing their mind. For some reason I see the opposite: people respecting those who "stick to their guns" or double down when something is clearly wrong. As you say, the context matters and these edits seem to be learning from the feedback rather than saving face since the sentiment stands, just in a less needlessly targeted way.

Never understood that either. If someone was wrong and bad, and now they're trying to do right and good, we need to celebrate that. Not just because that's awesome in itself, but also to give the opportunity and incentives for others in the future to do better.

If everyone is always bad regardless if they're trying to change, what incentives would they have from changing at all? It doesn't make any sense.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#207

Post by dxdm »

miroljub wrote: post #151
TheDong wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notably [go] ended up giving up on [gerrit] That's not accurate. They more or less only use Gerrit still. They started accepting Github PRs, but not really, see https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github > You will need a Gerrit account to respond to your reviewers, including to mark feedback as 'Done' if implemented as suggested The comments are still gerrit, you really shouldn't use Github. The Go revi…

Many people confuse competence and dedication. A competent developer would be more likely to send a PR using the tool with zero friction than to dedicate a few additional hours of his life to create an account and figure out how to use some obscure.

You are making the same mistake of conflating competence and (lack of) dedication.

Most likely, dedication says little about competence, and vice versa. If you do not want to use the tools available to get something done and rather not do the task instead, what does that say about your competence?

I'm not in a position to know or judge this, but I could see how dedication could be a useful proxy for the expected quality a PR and the interaction that will go with it, which could be useful for popular open source projects. Not saying that's necessarily true, just that it's worth considering some maintainers might have anecdotal experiences along that line.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#208

Post by madwolf »

jack_pp wrote: post #194
testdelacc1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least he edited it to something more palatable. I vastly prefer someone who can admit to making a mistake and amending what they said to someone who doubles down. The latter attitude has become far too normalised in the last few years.

Is political correctness necessary to have a thriving community / open source project? Linux seems to be doing fine. I wouldn't personally care either way but it is non-obvious to me that the first version would actually hurt the community.

Not calling other software engineers 'losers' is not about political correctness. They're "losers" because they take their product on a path you don't like? Come on. Linus can be emotional in his posts because Linux is his "child".

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#209

Post by egeozcan »

brushfoot wrote: post #139

The edit history of the announcement is quite a ride: > [2025-11-27T02:10:07Z] 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 [1] > [2025-11-27T14:04:47Z] it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the…

Also

> More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys ...

vs

> Most importantly, Actions has inexcusable bugs ...

I commend the author for correcting their mistakes. However, IMHO, an acknowledgement instead of just a silent edit would have been better.

Anyway, each to their own, and I'm happy for the Zig community.

Re: Zig quits GitHub, says Microsoft's AI obsession has ruined the service

#210

Post by sunnyday_002 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #205
kakwa_ wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I have low standards given I've never touched what gitlab or CircleCi have to offer, but compared to my past experiences with Buildbot, Jenkins and Travis, it's miles ahead of these in my opinion. Am I missing a truly better alternative or CI systems simply are all kind of a pita?

My issue with Github CI is that it doesn't run your code in a container. You just have github-runner-1 user and you need to manually check out repository, do your build and clean up after you're done with it. Very dirty and unpredictable. That's for self-hosted runner.

> My issue with Github CI is that it doesn't run your code in a container.

Is this not what you want?

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/write-workflows/c...

> You just have github-runner-1 user and you need to manually check out repository, do your build and clean up after you're done with it. Very dirty and unpredictable. That's for self-hosted runner.

Yeah checking out everytime is a slight papercut I guess, but I guess it gives you control as sometimes you don't need to checkout anything or want a shallow/full clone. I guess if it checked out for you then their would be other papercuts.

I use their runners so never need to do any cleanup and get a fresh slate everytime.

Post reply on HN