> The title is as misleading as you want it to be, Zig (the language) is famous for not being yet stable, did you really expect Uber to use it in production?
You seem a bit confrontational considering your role.
The Uber title would have been more clear if it said "How Uber Uses zig(1)". No, I don't expect capital-Z Zig to mean the compiler but not the language itself.
I'd expect most people to read "Zig is a general-purpose programming language and toolchain" as saying Zig has a toolchain for compiling itself, which is unremarkable. The idea that an experimental language's toolchain might be superior at (cross-)compiling and linking C than gcc or clang is not obvious and isn't described that well on the front page. I see the "Maintain it with Zig" section has a bullet point about this, but it's not that prominent IMHO and doesn't say why. I heard elsewhere how great Zig is for cross-compiling C. (Easily targeting arbitrary glibc versions is a great feature!)
IMHO, you'd be wise to consider this paragraph avgcorrection wrote:
> You seem a bit confrontational considering your role.
Not everyone opening up an article on HN will have the context you do that Zig is an experimental language, that it has a toolchain that can do this, etc. Maybe look at how you can work on that rather than say stuff like "The title is as misleading as you want it to be"?
> Not everyone opening up an article on HN will have the context you do that Zig is an experimental language, that it has a toolchain that can do this, etc. Maybe look at how you can work on that rather than say stuff like "The title is as misleading as you want it to be"?
All this stuff is mentioned in the blog post itself, some of it even in the opening TLDR.
> All this stuff is mentioned in the blog post itself, some of it even in the opening TLDR.
Yes. And...it was a surprise, people found the blog post's contents inconsistent with the HN title "Uber Uses Zig". People identify Zig as the language, not the toolchain, in part for the reasons I just described. You mentioned the website describes the toolchain, but I don't think it did it as well as it could.
As the VP of community for Zig, do you want to be telling everyone on HN that they're wrong? Or do you want to be welcoming, to build a Zig website that helps people quickly understand what Zig is, etc.?
If you say so. Fortunately I'm not in charge of community relations. Looks like the person who is just took to twitter to complain, generalizing this discussion to American culture.
> Peak american culture when HN commenters only read the title of a submission and act surprised when you refuse to spoonfeed them information present in the second paragraph of the linked article."
For the record if the complaint is about me, I did read the blog post before commenting, and I happened to already have the context that Zig has a nice C toolchain. But I'm stunned that someone with that title is responding in this way to people who are surprised about that and saying Zig's website points it out, when it really doesn't very well. And then generalize to complaining about American culture. That escalated quickly...talk about alienating.
You seem a bit confrontational considering your role.
The Uber title would have been more clear if it said "How Uber Uses zig(1)". No, I don't expect capital-Z Zig to mean the compiler but not the language itself.