alt Hacker News> If you don't intend to write misleading stuff that makes Zig look bad
What misleading stuff? Makes Zig look bad how?
The posts I read were appreciative to Zig.
The only “misleading” piece of either blog post that I recall was the Andrew Kelley claim that Bun wasn’t fuzzing, which was easily refuted by pointing to their fuzzing work.
If there’s something more then I’d like to see it, but every time I ask nobody can point to anything other specific.
It's the "Bun is better in Rust" section which is misleading, where most things could have been done in Zig as well with a comparable amount of work (if we don't count the rewrite itself).
This section can also give the impression that the LLM rewrite itself brought those improvements, which it didn't.
Nor the LLM rewrite nor Rust in itself brought these improvements, extra work did.
The fuzzing thing also does looks bad and nothing was refuted: just by reading the bun post one could think they've been fuzzing for a long time, but it started only a few months before the rewrite, which makes it almost irrelevant: the result never shipped, or only for a short time. The whole thing looks like this: technically correct so hard to criticize because people can tell you "well no, the post doesn't say this!", but deceitful, with important omissions.