I could point to the same examples this article refers to: the Bun blog post says "Having a rigid style guide [in Zig] with clear ownership expectations explicitly spelled out in the type system was a real option for Bun" and presents no technical reason why they didn't choose (or even TRY) that. They handwave it with "This is and ergonomic than the Zig we expect".

Why was it in their own words a real option? And why did they not go for it? This is the technical substance I'm looking for: an engineer explaining what options have been considered and what wanted and unwanted tradeoffs they present.

Also only mentioning figures for the platforms that saw an improvement is sketchy. "With ICU and code folding Windows and Linux get 20% smaller", what about macOS? Why did it not see the same gains? The fact that they don't mention it makes me think that they don't KNOW, and isn't confidence inspiring coming from the engineer who SHOULD know.

▲

cognitiveinline an hour ago | parent [-]

Every blog post has infinite things it does not mention.

"Technical substance" simply requires that some technically substantive things are mentioned. Which was indeed the case.

	▲	simjnd an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not about the things that matter. If you write a blog post about "I switched from X to Y", I expect the WHY: the pros and cons of X, of Y, and of the alternatives that were considered and dismissed before considering Y. This is more a blog post about how to use Fable to switch from X to Y, than it is about X or Y.