[HN Gopher] Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground
___________________________________________________________________
Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 446 points
Date : 2025-11-30 03:54 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (zigtools.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (zigtools.org)
| wavemode wrote:
| original submission dicussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45947810
| darshanime wrote:
| since zig is famously decentralized, i don't think there is a way
| to effectively combat bad actors like these? there is no
| "official zig org" that can disown them
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| In a decentralized but communicating community, this kind of
| post is raising awareness, and then the others in the community
| will make their own choices regarding the matter.
| pa7ch wrote:
| Its the opposite in my understanding. Zig has a BDFL.
|
| Trademarks are the usual cudgel of choice to enforce a bad
| actor claiming to be part of offcial Zig.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| But he isn't. He's just writing an AI slop book about Zig.
| Surely there's nothing legally wrong with that? He never said
| it's an official book or backed by the Zig project.
|
| The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an
| incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig,
| confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add
| malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that.
|
| Trademark can't be used to control bad actors like zigbook.
| lenkite wrote:
| > Surely there's nothing legally wrong with that?
|
| Incorrect. Not honoring the attribution requirement in the
| MIT license is a copyright infringement because it violates
| the terms of the license, which are legally enforceable
| conditions.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| We are specifically talking about what the Zig
| project/foundation headed by Andy Kelley can do to such
| bad actors using the Zig trademark - which is exactly
| nothing.
|
| I wouldn't be so quick with the "incorrect" if I were
| you. You haven't even taken the trouble to read two
| sentences.
| lenkite wrote:
| > I wouldn't be so quick with the "incorrect" if I were
| you. You haven't even taken the trouble to read two
| sentences.
|
| I wouldn't be so quick with the dismissal if I were you.
| You haven't even taken the trouble to read the article.
|
| Also, _Quad erat demonstrandum_ - the infringing repo no
| longer exists.
| pa7ch wrote:
| Mm thats a good point. I'm not entirely clear on the limits
| of trademarks in this case. Its Zigbook rather then Zig.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| I read a lot about this when Rust was considering
| adopting a trademark policy. The main use cases for
| enforcing the trademark were
|
| - preventing someone who hardforked the project from
| creating an incompatible language while using the same
| name.
|
| - preventing someone from distributing malware while
| still using the same name.
|
| Because if you notice, neither of these clash with the
| MIT license that many languages use. You need to enforce
| your trademark to stop this kind of behaviour.
|
| Zigbook can argue that they aren't causing any confusion
| between themselves and the Zig language. The Zig
| foundation could argue that the name implies an
| endorsement by the project and they should call
| themselves _The Unofficial Zig Book_ instead. I don't
| know which way it goes.
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| I wonder what tools the Zig team has to deal with trolls like
| this.
|
| Is the zig name or logo trademarked? What about the mascot he's
| using as his github picture?
|
| They're violating the terms of the MIT license as mentioned in
| the article, so maybe Zigtools has legal standing.
|
| As for lying about no AI, being an asshole isn't illegal, so no
| angle there.
|
| Any other ideas I missed?
| bragr wrote:
| Lying potentially opens up fraud angles if they are soliciting
| or receiving something of value. Maybe false advertising even
| they are giving it away for free. A lot of this will depend on
| who has jurisdiction
| wyldfire wrote:
| Plagiarism is a moral wrong.
|
| But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability).
|
| Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does
| it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have
| some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be
| something to consider.
| bjt wrote:
| It's addressed in the post. MIT license. Zigbook is not
| honoring the attribution requirement. A PR to change that was
| closed and obfuscated.
| anonnon wrote:
| > Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement
|
| It's crazy how many people treat MIT as if it were public
| domain.
| adrian17 wrote:
| This probably depends on country, but AFAIK in most of
| europe, even in public domain, the ,,you can't pass
| another's work as your own" part of copyright is still
| active and doesn't expire.
| poly2it wrote:
| This piques my interest, what is the legally required
| recognition of a derivative's parent work? Must I be able
| to list dependencies, or should I be able to verify
| whether a parent work is included in mine? What if my
| work is a second derivative of a work which I am unaware
| of, because the work in between improperly didn't
| recognise its parent? Am I legally responsible to
| investigate such cases?
| projektfu wrote:
| Something like, " _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ , by
| Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith" is probably
| sufficient.
| Zambyte wrote:
| I genuinely believe more people violate permissive licenses
| than copyleft license. I have no data to back this up, but
| just look at how much people focused on if LLMs were
| violating the GPL by reproducing code covered by the GPL
| without reproducing the license. If LLMs violate the GPL,
| they violate all licenses besides ones that are effectively
| public domain.
| lenkite wrote:
| AI is actually beginning to encourage "restricted source",
| public-only-gets-binary debates to simply avoid such legal
| issues.
|
| Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories
| are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also
| avoid slop-PR headaches that away.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| If you were licensing MIT, ostensibly it's not the copying
| you care about, just the attribution. There is always the
| option to turn off prs, or even distribute code without using
| github.
| mtndew4brkfst wrote:
| GitHub has never allowed public repos to disable PRs in
| particular. There's no setting for that.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| It's not directly possible, no, but with branch
| protection rules and this Github action it is trivial to
| set up: https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown
| tliltocatl wrote:
| Sorry, this sounds like the absolutely worst idea ever. The
| way to kill open source as such. Sloppy PRs will end when the
| idiot HRs release there is no value in them. Plagiarism isn't
| really anything new and AI doesn't really change much there.
| But adding friction to examining source is a sure way to make
| no one care to contribute.
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| Honest question, what are "HR"s? I only know that acronym
| for "Human Resources" and I don't understand how that has
| anything to do with code contribution
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is.
|
| I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice,
| something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists
| considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this
| llm generated book.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| "Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer
| everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's
| obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people
| out when I see they've posted something on social media
| (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post.
| The fraud has to stop.
| lillecarl wrote:
| There's also the option of embracing it.
|
| https://github.com/Lillecarl/lix/commit/9ac72bbd0c7802ca83a9.
| ..
|
| I'm not ashamed to use AI if it improves my output, people
| draw the line of "acceptable use" differently just like drug
| addicts talk shit about each other's drugs to justify their
| own. I think honesty is more important than cleanliness.
| nurettin wrote:
| I stopped using linkedin once the mediapipe epidemic started
| and everyone who could type pip install mediapipe could write
| a half baked hand and face gesture demo to show themselves as
| the "cool programmer".
| pjmlp wrote:
| Kind of hard unfortunately, now when one gets evaluated how
| much we're improving our daily work with AI, when the annual
| feedback meeting comes.
|
| The no AI devs will get a "needs improvement" report.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| I've talked to people who got fired for not embracing AI,
| so go out there and say how much more productive you are
| even if it's a lie.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement
| is
|
| You don't have to. I'm sure there are lots of other communities
| that welcome low-effort slop with no effort put into it.
| omoikane wrote:
| The "no AI" statement reminds me of the Chinese idiom: "there
| are no 300 taels of silver here" (there is no money buried
| here). It's a clumsy way of denying something.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A4%E5%9C%B0%E7%84%A1%E...
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Had a conversation with the Zigbook maintainer. It's either a
| young kid or somebody that has some serious growing up to do.
| Just generally weird behavior.
| ayhanfuat wrote:
| Indeed: @zigbook changed the title "Fix license violations" "Im
| mad because you wrote code similiar to mine >:(" 3 minutes ago
| (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/43)
| vintagedave wrote:
| Wow. It's also an extremely reasonable pull request, here's
| the only commit: https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/compare/m
| ain...SuperAugus...
| arp242 wrote:
| I could _sort of_ understand it if the PR used all sorts of
| judgemental /accusatory language or something. But it
| doesn't; it's straight-forward and factual. Outright
| bizarre behaviour.
| ikari_pl wrote:
| help us, it's gone
| ajifurai wrote:
| Original commit: https://github.com/SuperAuguste/zigbook/
| commit/8cc9edd35b3e3...
| doe88 wrote:
| I really loved this PR, very fair, appropriate, sensible,
| proportionated; masterpiece! Could easily be used as
| example in all _git commit_ writing guides around (half-
| joking).
| gnarlouse wrote:
| At one point they added a "R******D COMPLAINT" (censored for
| HN) ticket sticker to... idk, oppose AI-use accusations?
| Somebody seemingly talked them down from it though. Just
| bizarre. Like watching a midlife crisis through GitHub
| issues.
| koolala wrote:
| Playground wise, is Zigs wasm compiler able to compile out simd
| wasm in the browser? I'm trying to find the best languages that
| can. So far it's just assemblyscript and c/c++ and their
| compilers are big.
| lioeters wrote:
| I haven't dug deep but it seems Zig's Wasm target does support
| SIMD.
|
| > WebAssembly portable SIMD intrinsics
|
| https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/src/branch/master/lib/inclu...
| koolala wrote:
| The issue is I think that code is based on LLVM and and I am
| not sure the self-hosted Zig compiler that runs well in Wasm
| can do it.
| nmilo wrote:
| I remember reading the original zig book post and how weird it
| smelt. Even though it's LLM written there's more than a trivial
| amount of effort put into it. What could anyone possibly have to
| gain by doing this?
| vanous wrote:
| @Zigtools:
|
| Thank you for your educative post, letting the community know.
|
| Don't let it to drag you down in any way. This is emotionally
| draining and takes away motivation, but keep going.
| lillecarl wrote:
| https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/45#issuecomment-3592...
| Would this be grounds to report zigbook to GitHub maybe? This is
| wild
| SSLy wrote:
| zigbook edited a 3rd party comment to say "I'm autistic and
| sperging out over stuff on the internet that doesn't actually
| matter. Don't mind me."
|
| Just your run off the mill AI grifter.
|
| EDIT:
| https://lobste.rs/s/pbn3zy/zigbook_learn_zig_programming_lan...
|
| "Quick research - author's actual profile is
| https://github.com/zk-evm, and he's a potential scammer from
| crypto spaces, who also happens to be running fake GitHub
| Organisation of the Cursor editor, along with related
| BuyMeACoffee claiming it being official page of the "Cursor AI
| Editor"."
| KomoD wrote:
| > Quick research - author's actual profile is
| https://github.com/zk-evm
|
| The account is called zig-vm now.
|
| And here's his real github account:
| https://github.com/gweidart
| jamesbelchamber wrote:
| How did you connect this account back to the "real"
| account?
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| Well, the name of the "real" account is "zkevm.dev", and
| the previous account was zk-evm. Those are just letters
| to me, but it does seem like a clear link. Couldn't say
| that either is "real", though.
| csomar wrote:
| It is not. zk-evm refers to a type of blockchain. It's
| not a unique/singular link.
| KomoD wrote:
| "zkevm.dev" is his domain, he uses it for email on all 3
| accounts.
| speedgoose wrote:
| The account had a link to a personal website, that (for
| now) has links to a few social medias and the "real"
| account.
| jamesbelchamber wrote:
| That's a pretty strong link, nice work!
| Chris2048 wrote:
| An old version of a related contact page: https://web.archi
| ve.org/web/20250320001430/https://gweidart....
|
| lists as a donation link:
| https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Newcomer214
|
| So, gweidart is probably this guy:
| https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-newcomer-7275aa228/
| RestartKernel wrote:
| That's mostly just odd. Either a young teen way in over their
| head or a weirdly non-functional adult.
| Crestwave wrote:
| Oh wow. Your original comment is pretty darn prophetic.
| slacktivism123 wrote:
| >Would this be grounds to report zigbook to GitHub maybe?
|
| 100%.
|
| https://docs.github.com/en/communities/maintaining-your-safe...
| nusl wrote:
| Grifter or not, editing user comments to make it look like
| they're saying something they're not isn't okay.
|
| Edit: It appears that the repo is gone? User removed it or
| GitHub?
| lillecarl wrote:
| I reported it to Github, supplied links to the edits and to
| this HN thread. The canned response was:
|
| "Our review of the account(s) and/or content named in your
| report has concluded. We have determined that one or more
| violations of GitHub's Terms of Service have occurred and
| have taken appropriate action in response."
|
| It took 2h40m, genuinely impressed how quick the turnaround
| was :)
| p1nkpineapple wrote:
| your other PR made me laugh:
| https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/46 absolutely wild that
| they had the gall to report you, lol
| SSLy wrote:
| Fear not I've mirrored it
| https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https%3A%2F%2Fgit...
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Sadly the important information, what was actually edited,
| isn't part of that mirror. (It's async fetched by the ui when
| clicking on the edit information on GitHub)
| SSLy wrote:
| it's said something to paraphrase "I wonder what antisocial
| behaviour will be seen next instead of dealing with the
| feedback"
| keyle wrote:
| The whole thing looks very childish, I'm not sure I even fully
| understand the conversation of #43. Are they troll accounts?
| blks wrote:
| And now it's made private.
| nusl wrote:
| Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action?
|
| Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here
| are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them
| say something they never did;
|
| https://imgur.com/a/LsvBXY1
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https://github.co...
|
| The tool itself claims "Zero AI" (https://www.zigbook.net/) yet
| is very obviously A-Lot-AI.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| I find GitHub to be very prompt and responsive to abuse
| reports, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was them if people
| reported the comments etc.
| Meneth wrote:
| The only public repo remaining under their github account is
| this VSCode-Copilot integration tool
| (https://github.com/zigbook/pilot).
| Zambyte wrote:
| It seems their whole account is gone now.
| NoteyComplexity wrote:
| The responds and edits are simply unprofessional and immature.
| I don't hate AI and in fact I use it for many research based
| tasks, helping me narrowing a lot of tough topics, but it is
| the People with these kind of attitude turns me off.
| nusl wrote:
| AI use is fine, though pretending you haven't used it when
| you obviously did rubs me the wrong way.
|
| I get why GitHub allows editing comments of other users
| though for public repos I guess it allows for this kind of
| abuse
| NoteyComplexity wrote:
| Exactly, being dishonest is the real problem here.
|
| Luckily, every edits are recorded in history, so they can't
| really hide their abusive behavior, for now. Even if they
| did, seem like there are often people faster in archiving
| their posts than they hiding their post.
| cardanome wrote:
| I don't mid the immature part, they are hate fueled. The
| ableism is disgusting.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I think the open abuse of people raising issues with the
| project is morally worse than the license issues or even
| lying about AI usage. Fraud is already bad, but someone can
| do that for reasons other than pure mean-spiritedness. To
| pull this nonsense, you have to actively take pleasure in
| making other people feel bad.
| arccy wrote:
| probably user reports to GitHub's moderation team
| jonathrg wrote:
| It's unbelievable to me that Github allows repo admins to edit
| other people's comments.
| NeckBeardPrince wrote:
| What would be a valid reason to allow this? That just seems
| mind-numbingly stupid.
| projektfu wrote:
| Censoring insults or illegal speech (depending on
| jurisdiction) would be the main reason I can think of.
| merlindru wrote:
| That also means that some users will be pressured to
| censor illegal speech no? If you live under e.g. a regime
| that disallows or discourages criticism, now suddenly the
| onus is on you to do something about those comments
| because you have the ability to. If you couldn't edit the
| comments it's not your fault.
|
| Either way I think it's a pretty stupid feature the way
| it's implemented; it should show the edit more clearly or
| indicate that the comment has been written by multiple
| people (like StackOverflow does), especially if edits
| change more than e.g. 10% of the original comment.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| in such case ability to delete comment would be enough
| halapro wrote:
| This is particularly useful when editing the top-level
| comment of a popular issue to specify the current status.
| Or when a peer opened a placeholder issue and you fill it
| up. Etc.
|
| If you actually use GitHub as a social network of sorts,
| there are many reasons to do edit comments. All the edits
| are visible anyway. You're on Git-Hub, you can already edit
| everything you have write access to.
| tomalbrc wrote:
| In which world would you want others to be able to edit
| your posts in a "SOCIAL NETWORK"? In today's age of
| misinformation? Greeeeeeeat idea.
| jabbywocker wrote:
| For GitHub specifically? This world. This is a useful
| feature
| gucci-on-fleek wrote:
| Markdown is pretty tricky for new users to figure out, so
| quite often, users will just paste big snippets of code
| without formatting them, which is nearly unreadable. I'll
| usually edit these posts to add ```backticks``` around any
| code.
| arccy wrote:
| or they'll do what i assume is the jira style code blocks
| with just `multiple lines of code`
| munificent wrote:
| I maintain the formatter for Dart, so a lot of my job
| involves maintaining the issue tracker for the formatter.
|
| I use this feature all the time. Users get Markdown wrong,
| give titles to issues that don't make any sense, have
| typos, etc. Being able to edit issues helps me keep the
| issue tracker easier to understand and navigate for
| maintainers and users.
|
| Every feature can be used. That doesn't mean every feature
| should not exist. The fact that the edit history is still
| visible means it's next to impossible to abuse the feature.
| It works fine.
| the8472 wrote:
| That's a useful feature for long-running issues to include
| updates in the opening post. Or to improve formatting when a
| bug reporter isn't familiar with markdown. And that it shows
| in the edit history should at least discourage abuse.
| dannyfritz07 wrote:
| Allowing the maintainer to prepend a comment to the top
| seems more sensible to me to be honest. Would make API use
| harder potentially, but it would avoid weird abuse like
| this.
| the8472 wrote:
| github is meant for collaboration, designing it around
| adversarial use would be a loss for everyone. Adding a
| function to report absusive edits rather than an entire
| post would be a better choice imo.
| testaccount28 wrote:
| reporting abusive edits requires moderation/arbitration.
| the rules can instead be changed to sidestep the issue,
| while maintaining the value of the feature.
| pirates wrote:
| Report to whom? Github, who allows the behavior and
| therefore doesn't see anything wrong with it, or the repo
| admins who have proven they they couldn't give a rat's
| ass about the very thing you're reporting? The well is
| already poisoned, there is no reason to think that they'd
| suddenly change their stance and cooperate.
| freehorse wrote:
| In this case at least, github (most probably) banned this
| account, presumably after reports. There are also other
| stories for github banning accounts for pr trolling kind
| of behaviours. So not sure if everything is perfect, but
| at least there are cases such things work.
| sysguest wrote:
| > designing it around adversarial use would be a loss for
| everyone
|
| hmm... isn't this more of a 'personal viewpoint'? why are
| you stating this like a fact?
|
| moreover, how would it "adding Edited by ~" constitute as
| a "loss for everyone" ?
|
| I agree on adding "report abuse" button, but if no one
| notices that edit, how would anyone know what to report
| in the first place?
| junon wrote:
| It's personal but I agree with it. This is probably the
| first time I've seen it abused like this. I've been on GH
| for like 10-15 years.
|
| Normally, repository maintainers are not self-sabotaging
| like this.
| tomalbrc wrote:
| It obviously does not discourage abuse
| the8472 wrote:
| No, that's not obvious at all. A single event is evidence
| that some abuse still happens, it does not tell us how
| much more abuse there would be in the counterfactual
| where the history wasn't available.
|
| discourage != prevent all
| ktm5j wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but I feel like they should
| highlight comments in some way if a repo admin completely
| replaces a comment with different text. I'm struggling to
| imagine a situation where that would really be
| appropriate. The "Edited by: username" seems too easy to
| overlook.
| the8472 wrote:
| They could show multiple post authors, similar to how
| they do for co-authored commits.
| vunderba wrote:
| The vanishing small percentage of people that would
| actually check a comment's history are the same people who
| would check a Wikipedia entries history.
|
| _At a bare minimum_ , the post should have in big bold
| lettering: Edited by <user_name>.
| xrd wrote:
| Did you make up A-Lot-AI? Can I suggest "A-Lott-a-AI"?
|
| If you did, this is the greatest thing created in 3 ABC ("After
| Bullshit ChatGPTification"; ChatGPT launched in 2022.).
|
| NB: Since ChatGPT is basically the new Messiah for many, I
| really think we should now be using dates like 3 ABC or 5 POS.
| POS stands for "Prior to Overlord Slop/Shit". I suggest we give
| up AD/BC.
|
| But, please, I'm not the messiah! (hopefully you have watched
| Life of Brian!)
| nusl wrote:
| Follow-up: seems they've been banned
| networked wrote:
| I notice again I haven't internalized how much
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpec...
| really happens.
| kklisura wrote:
| There should be something of an OFAC Sanction List for SWE for
| people who blatantly transgress moral and ethical lines.
| kyleee wrote:
| Ahh good idea; like the Brady list for bad police officers in
| US. Just have to figure out how to ensure it has teeth and
| doesn't become a witch hunt
| kshri24 wrote:
| Gets worse: https://github.com/EclipseFdn/open-
| vsx.org/issues/6395
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Already gone.
| https://web.archive.org/web/20251130101438/https://github.co...
| Havoc wrote:
| I could see LLMs copying code as innocent mistake, but identical
| sha256sum on wasm files...jikes
| dangoodmanUT wrote:
| Wtf is happening in the zig world this week
| znpy wrote:
| The only stupid thing here is that the zigtools playground is mit
| licensed, so all zigbook had to do was acknowledging original
| copyright.
| b800h wrote:
| Whenever I hear anything about Zig it seems to be drama. Very
| bizarre, will avoid.
| jamiejquinn wrote:
| Ditto... I love Zig as a language but I worry the high-level
| community builders (including Andrew) are a little too
| antagonistic to foster a positive, tolerant, patient community
| in the long term. In saying that, my infrequent interactions in
| the reddit and discord are always pleasant.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Actual Zig community spaces like Ziggit is very pleasant as
| far as programming language forums go. I think Zig just
| occupies a unique space in the language ecosystem (a very
| performance oriented, production oriented language that is
| not afraid to rapidly try things and throw them out if it
| doesn't meet expectations in practice - not many languages
| sit in the middle of this venn diagram) and people see it as
| an opportunity to gain a social foothold in something
| potentially great.
|
| It seems like it might be in the nature of a language with
| these goals and this development process to attract people
| like this, no matter how warm and welcoming the community
| leaders are.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I don't think Andrew is a bad guy, but his tone seems to
| attract a certain kind of person. All the technical people
| I've interacted with in the Zig community have been awesome,
| but for whatever reason it also attracts a lot of people who
| are just there to shit on anything mainstream.
| myko wrote:
| This is the first drama I've heard related to Zig, and seems to
| have nothing to do with the project itself-this is someone
| writing an online book about Zig
| baranul wrote:
| Zig has previously been involved in all kinds of drama.
| Including involving money, battles among developers, attempts
| to split/fork the language, and self-pushed conflicts with
| other programming languages. This is just the latest, in the
| long series.
| pityJuke wrote:
| This isn't anything to do with Zig though, it just happens to
| be the language that this crook chose.
|
| They've could've picked Nim and done this whole spiel there
| (you'd want to pick a fledgling language that isn't saturated
| with documentation, so the stalwarts aren't usable).
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Disappointing.
|
| When zigbook first appeared here, I took a cursory scan, and it
| looked pretty solid and a useful resource. Seems it duped me and
| got me good. I was even defending the use of AI a little -
| although the claim needed to go.
|
| Seems they just were just trying to do over a nascent community
| that I'm interested in seeing growing and wasn't a member of yet.
|
| Good riddance, then.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| I'm doing AoC on Zig this year. Zigtools will be my reference.
| Cheers!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-30 23:00 UTC)