There are astute comments about the post's tone elsewhere in this thread[0]

But this killed my hopes for Zig.

The drama is fun, and Andrew is maybe even admirable in his earnest, but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project. I know that's boring and uninspired, but that's what I want my tech stack and it's management to be.

Also, maybe Jarred was a net negative, but bun was also a really big project using Zig, and the project leaving isn't as good for Zig as Andrew is making it seem. It genuinely seems he's putting a lot of priority on purity and ideology over just growth of the language. And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

[0] esp. nilirl.

I have the exact opposite impression. From everything else I’ve seen around Andrew and the Zig Foundation he is extremely professional and skilled with managing community. In fact I’d say the community and management of the project is Zigs biggest strength.

This blog post only reinforces this opinion. It is clear that the Zig developers has had huge issues with his relationship with Bun for a long time, and it seems from both Jarred and Andrew’s post that Andrew really put all those issues aside, in spite of his strong personal opinions, to maintain a professional and productive relationship as long as possible.

It’s only now that the relationship is broken (on Buns initiative) that he has taken the opportunity to vent a bit. And I’m really glad he did.

It’s similar to Linus. Sometimes Linus goes too far in his comments. But getting an occasional insight into people’s personal opinion is good, as long as it’s not at the cost of breaking a professional relationship.

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

I don't immediately see how much the seriousness of the project is related to the language the author chose in their personal blog post. It's similar to saying that Linux could not have become a serious project because of the way Linus communicated in his emails.

He is understandably annoyed. It feels like you are making it a problem for people to have emotions and give signs that they have those emotions. He didn’t even write anything direct and it is on his personal blog

In what way the article convinced you that Andrew Kelley is not professional enough for a serious project like Zig? Isn't his contribution to the language what's important?

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

I actually think this gets to, but steps over, the core objection: traditional "hacker" mindset vs VC "growth hacking" mindset.

> And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

Why? Why can't he create a language with exactly the kind of purity and ideology he wants, broader adoption be damned? Why must everything optimize for user growth and mindshare?

> and the project leaving isn't as good for Zig as Andrew is making it seem

In this case, Bun was acquired by Anthropic. Leaving Zig is not necessarily out of merit. As much as they pretend it was.

By what metric is bun a "really big project"? It seems to have less than 5 consistent contributors. It's not a very popular npm package there's just a larger focus on gaming github stats.

The usecase itself is js on the backend, seems unaligned with zig.

https://npmtrends.com/bun-vs-express-vs-is-vs-is-number-vs-t...

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project

It hasn't stopped Rust's growth, so I doubt this is true.

Most people don't care about this kind of interpersonal drama unless it impacts the actual technology itself.

> priority on purity and ideology over just growth of the language.

If that's so, I find it OK. The maintainer(s) have the right, even the obligation, to make that choice. Growth alone is not a value, you have to be willing to pay the price for it.

> but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project.

Yes, I think you are totally right. I'm sure Linux would never be so big as it is without a maintainer that talks so professional than Linus Torvalds.

> And I am sorry, but adoption and reaching critical mass is an important part of a serious programming language.

Would you argue that Chez Scheme (to pick a random example) isn't a "serious programming language"? And I am sorry, but the assumption that "explosive growth" in the venture capital sense is somehow necessary for "success" is cancer.