And if I were to add something, I honestly think Andrew should take this matter private and talk to Jarred. Not for an apology, just to clear the air and leave no room for bad blood between them.
3 Likes
If discussion is being âpretty/refreshingly civilâ, then no need to intervene and close the thread, just leave it open and let it settle by itself, as it is the case with the majority of the threads here. An intervention could be interpreted as censorhip.
Having respect (the only thing we can demand from each other), as it is clearly the case here, then I think this free speech exercise is being beneficial for the zig community. Growing pains are a positive effect.
3 Likes
Iâll point out once again that people making this argument are demanding everyone accept the premises underlying their value system. Thereâs nothing really to debate at that point - the discussion has transcended any sort of disagreement that can be reasonably adjudicated. It is religious in nature.
Sure. But that doesnât settle the question of whether this is inherently immoral. Youâre simply asserting that it is.
This argument leaves no room for the possibility that people willingly pursue such arrangements because they value the potential upside. Youâve deemed such arrangements immoral on their behalf and seem to believe that stripping them of their agency is a form of empathy.
But this isnât a hypothetical, or some mere possibility underlying a contrived argument:
and
Whatever difference in values may exist, only one side seems to suggest that the otherâs values are inherently immoral. And it just so happens that the people being called immoral, either directly or by implication, have been some of the biggest individual financial contributors to the zig project.
3 Likes
No, we are just saying âoh, this is Jarredâs value system that Jarred has argued forâ or âthis is your value system that you have argued forâ. If that feels insulting to you, maybe that is something you should think about.
5 Likes
My first line explicitly recognizes there is difference in value.
Iâm not trying to convince you, Iâm explaining why it makes sense to call Jarred as lacking in empathy for saying âif you value work/life balance then do not come work for meâ.
Iâm not saying it is the objective truth you should agree with.
Thatâs not what I have said.
Iâm not making a moral argument nor a prescription for their life, I just described the system in-place and that I personally disapprove it on a sustainability level.
One can believe that having car-centric cities is unsustainable and people in this system tend to lack in empathy and is bad for everyone from an economical perspective â including people who buy into the car sale pitch â but it doesnât mean that I think an individual is immoral for driving a car nor do I desire to override their individual choice as âa form of empathyâ.
Same applies for lotteries and betting.
3 Likes
did you see the previous sentence though?
We became increasingly horrified at the programming practices we saw in Bunâs codebase. Hacks on top of hacks. Abuse of assertions. Most of all, recklessly speeding past feature after feature with very little time taken for reflection and elimination of bugs and technical debt.
and now youâre defending a âprogrammerâ who re-wrote an entire codebase using ai slop?
heck, you canât even say âre-wroteâ or âi wroteâ anymore. ai is such a poison, itâs literally distorting the way devs have communicated for decades LOL
1 Like
Iâm just hopeful that whatever your stance is on if the post was a good idea or not, we can eventually collectively agree as a humanity to stop talking about Bun, as Iâm beyond bored of hearing about a javascript runtime wrapper
3 Likes
To be honest Iâm having a hard time understanding why the JetBrains interview was popular and likeable, while this blog post is getting backlash.
I was watching Primeagenâs âlive reactionâ to your blog post and noticed how much he interpreted far beyond the actual words you wrote. I think that human communication has many aspects to it, and while you seem to focus on the precise words being used, as do I, Iâve noticed that most people only take in a few key words and interpret meanings based on tone, expression, and their own past experiences and biases.
In the JetBrains interview they had your tone, expressions, demeanor, and feeling of a personal connection, which all added a positive and well-meaning attitude through which to interpret your words. I suspect that a pure transcript of your JetBrains interview wouldnât have gone over nearly as well, as people would incorrectly ascribe to you varying degrees of negativity, aggression, and antagonism, to fill in the missing layers of communication.
Perhaps the more sensitive the subject, the less appropriate a pure-text response is.
12 Likes
I think itâs fair to say that statements like the following are not framed as opinions but as premises from which any debate must follow:
I also think itâs fair to say that most people view empathy as a foundation for morality and character - to assert that someone lacks empathy is to assert that theyâre lacking in other areas. Empathy is clearly a virtue, and one that your side of the debate has claimed authority over.
Nobody is disputing the fact that thereâs a difference in values here, and thereâs nothing wrong with disagreeing with someoneâs stated values. Thatâs more-or-less what happened with the AI debate, which I thought was handled really well by Andrew et al. This is different - Andrewâs claiming authority over someone elseâs values, in a blog post written with a distinct mean-girl aesthetic, which (among other things) is based on unsubstantiated grievances heard âthrough the grapevine.â
The great irony here is that the people who value empathy so much, and for whom empathy is such an important part of their identity and value system, canât seem to understand why such characterizations are seen as tasteless.
4 Likes
This. This is it right here. The only good take Iâve seen in this thread.
I donât know why it seems so taboo to abstain from voicing an opinion, or even having one in the first place.
Everyone is so quick to take sides. Andrew good, Jarred bad. Jarred bad, Andrew good. It reminds of the days I didnât have school so Iâd have to stay home with my Grandma while she watched the Wendy Williams Show. Itâs all noise.
6 Likes
Personally, I think itâs much more tasteless to argue that you can ask for 90 hour weeks and simultaneously be a person with great empathy.
1 Like
Perhaps, it is because you are anti-trending. Two trends, two anti-forces. One marketing force, one religion-alike force.
Iâm quite late to the game. Reading this I mostly thought of this HN post about writing a post-mortem.
I liked Andrew Kelleyâs blog, I donât think a process like that is required. I was just wondering if the process is available if he wants to use it.
Some of the comments here remind me of discussions in online tech spaces about the ontology of freedom. An often repeated argument was that an employerâs freedom to overwork their employees is balanced out by the employeesâ freedom to leave. Watching this take appear on this forum surprised me. However, it finally made it click for me what Andrew K likely meant when he said it wasnât personal.
3 Likes
The topic is getting too far a field now. Iâm going to close it.
13 Likes
The conclusion of the blog post was updated: My Thoughts on the Bun Rust Rewrite - Andrew Kelley
Commit: rewrite the conclusion section after self-reflection ¡ andrewrk/andrewkelley.me@8b86ac9 ¡ GitHub
29 Likes