I think we can quibble about the Bun post’s factual claims. But I don’t think the post was deceptive or dishonest in its claims. Like most technical writing, it represents a vantage point.

As for ghosting in meetings: sure, that seems bad. I would also be upset if someone did that to me. But you can state that factually without making it into a personal attack. It would even be more convincing.

▲

skilning an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Like most technical writing,

I think you've missed the core thesis of the article. That post _wasn't_ technical writing. It was marketing disguised as technical writing.

	▲	woodruffw an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s marketing that is also technical writing. Most companies do this, and IMO we should prefer this over the alternative (which is corporate blogspam). Compare Cloudflare, the Google Chrome Security blog, etc.
	▲	stingraycharles 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It was way too technical to disqualify it as not being technical writing. Writing can serve multiple purposes.

▲

Arainach 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don’t think the post was deceptive or dishonest in its claims

Presenting only one side of argument (only pros, no cons, etc.) is deceptive and dishonest. The fact that they were incredibly focused on build time in Zig and didn't even talk about it as a tradeoff going to Rust is very telling.

▲

woodruffw 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Are we talking about the same post? This is the one I’m talking about[1], and I can’t see where it’s claimed that Rust’s build times are better. Apologies if I’m missing it.

(The one reference I found to Rust’s compile times is them talking about how they had to split their Rust rewrite into 100 crates. A plain reading of this is the opposite of what you’re saying: they’re pointing out that Rust’s compile times are slower, but that this wasn’t an overriding negative.)

	▲	Arainach 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You don't have to claim that they're better, but making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork - and then not talking about it at all in the Rust doc (where it's apparent to anyone who's used Rust that compilation there is guaranteed to be slower) is dishonest or at least massively hypocritical.

▲

jraph 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]