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

Post by veverkap » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 5:58 PM UTC

styanax wrote: post #304

lawn wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it looks like they want to hide that they call people monkeys and losers . If they would own up to it and say sorry, then your point stands. But that's not what happened here.

> I completely agree with this. I performed really poorly on this axis. I’m sorry to the Zig community for that. I’ll take my L and get back to working on std.Io and the rest of the roadmap. [1] [1] https://ziggit.dev/t/migrating-from-github-to-codeberg-zig-p...

Post by st3fan » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 5:59 PM UTC

tuupola wrote: post #10

They also made the disastrous update to the dashboard feed which made the frontpage pretty much useless. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/65343

Post by oaiey » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #376

gortok wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you treat others says everything about you and nothing about the other person. In this case, the unnecessary insults detract from the otherwise important message, and reflect poorly on Zig. They were right to edit it.

On the other hand some notable open source leaders seem to be abrasive assholes. Linus, Theo, DHH, just three examples who come to mind. I think if you have a clear vision of what you want your project to be then being agressively dismissive of ideas that don't further that vision is necessary just to keep the noise to a low roar.

Post by snerbles » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 6:02 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #206

dannersy wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 6:15 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #310

Yizahi wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not like it's a simple black and white situation, universally applicable to every debate in human history. Sometimes it is relatively better to be open-minded and able to change own opinion. Sometimes it is relatively better to keep pushing a point if it is rational and/or morally correct. The reason why the latter stance is often popularized and cheered is because it is often harder to do, especially in t…

Consider the plight of a policy-maker who changes their stance on some issue. They may have changed their mind in light of new information, or evolved their position as a result of deeper reflection, personal experience, or maturation. Opponents will accuse them of "waffling" or "flip-flopping", indicating a lack of reliability or principles (if not straight-up bribery). Elected officials are responsible for expressi…