←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jasonjmcghee ◴[] No.45948044[source]
So despite this...

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM.

Can the author... Convince me otherwise?

> This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a different kind of simplicity: the kind you earn by climbing through complexity and emerging with complete understanding on the other side.

> Welcome to the Zigbook. Your transformation starts now.

...

> You will know where every byte lives in memory, when the compiler executes your code, and what machine instructions your abstractions compile to. No hidden allocations. No mystery overhead. No surprises.

...

> This is not about memorizing syntax. This is about earning mastery.

replies(13): >>45948094 #>>45948100 #>>45948115 #>>45948220 #>>45948287 #>>45948327 #>>45948344 #>>45948548 #>>45948590 #>>45949076 #>>45949124 #>>45950417 #>>45951487 #
Rochus ◴[] No.45948100[source]
Who cares?

Still better than just nagging.

replies(2): >>45948284 #>>45950274 #
maxbond ◴[] No.45948284[source]
Using AI to write is one thing, claiming you didn't when you did should be objectionable to everyone.
replies(2): >>45948310 #>>45948398 #
Rochus ◴[] No.45948310[source]
Who wants to be so petty.

I'm sure there are more interesting things to say about this book.

replies(1): >>45948345 #
maxbond ◴[] No.45948345{3}[source]
So petty as to lie about using AI or so petty as to call it out? Calling it out doesn't seem petty to me.

I intend to learn Zig when it reaches 1.0 so I was interested in this book. Now that I see it was probably generated by someone who claimed otherwise, I suspect this book would have as much of a chance of hurting my understanding as helping it. So I'll skip it. Does that really sound petty?

replies(2): >>45948434 #>>45948497 #
Rochus[dead post] ◴[] No.45948497{4}[source]
[flagged]
maxbond ◴[] No.45948605[source]
I understand being okay with a book being generated (some of the text I published in this manual [1] is generated), I can imagine not caring that the author lied about their use of AI, but I really don't understand the suggestion I write a book about a subject I just told you I'm clueless about. I feel like there's some kind of epistemic nihilism here that I can't fathom. Or maybe you meant it as a barb and it's not that deep? You tell me I guess.

[1] https://maxbondabe.github.io/attempt/intro.html

replies(1): >>45948869 #
Rochus ◴[] No.45948869[source]
I would rather care whether there is a book at all and whether it is useful.

> I write a book about a subject I just told you I'm clueless about

Use AI. Even if you use AI, it's still a lot of work. Or write a book about why people shouldn't let AI write their books.

replies(1): >>45948977 #
maxbond ◴[] No.45948977[source]
I'm also concerned whether it is useful! That's why I'm not gunnuh read it after receiving a strong contrary indicator (which was less the use of AI than the dishonesty around it). That's also why I try to avoid sounding off on topics I'm not educated in (which is too say, why I'm not writing a book about Zig).

Remember - I am using AI and publishing the results. I just linked you to them!

replies(1): >>45949037 #
1. Rochus ◴[] No.45949037{8}[source]
> I'm also concerned whether it is useful!

So you could do everyone a favour by giving a sufficiently detailed review, possibly with recommendations to the author how to improve the book. Definitely more useful than speculating about the author's integrity.

replies(1): >>45949054 #
2. maxbond ◴[] No.45949054[source]
I'm satisfied with what's been presented here already, and as someone who doesn't know Zig it would take me several weeks (since I would have to learn it first), so that seems like an unreasonable imposition on my time. But feel free to provide one yourself.
replies(1): >>45949143 #
3. Rochus ◴[] No.45949143[source]
Well, there must have been a good reason why you don't like the book. I didn't see good reasons in this whole discussion so far, just a lot of pedantry. No commenter points to technical errors, inaccuracies, poor code examples, or pedagogical problems. The entire objection rests on subjective style preferences and aesthetic nitpicking rather than legitimate quality concerns.
replies(2): >>45949176 #>>45949191 #
4. ◴[] No.45949176{3}[source]
5. maxbond ◴[] No.45949191{3}[source]
I don't see what else I can say to help you understand. I think we just have very different values and world views and find one another's perspective baffling. Perhaps your preferred AI assistant, if directed to this conversation, could put it in clearer terms than I am able to.