After many years in the business I have come to a more pragmatic view. There is no meaningful way of distinguishing features from bugs. It doesn't matter that work tracking software usually does.

Once you realize that the lack of a feature is the same as the presence of a bug then "fixing all bugs" also means "adding all the features", then you also accept that you will never be done.

If you have a bug to fix to weigh against a feature to add, which do you pick? The only correct answer is "The one that provides most value". And again we see that it's very possible - even likely - that fixing the last bug will _never_ be as important as adding more features.

I know this is probably not what the author meant. First of all "having a process" doesn't mean completing the process. Second of all, you can categorize bugs as being of a specific kind (The linked article under [fixing all bugs] actually only talks about failing asserts).

In the near term, Bun choosing to switch from Zig to Rust specifically to fix all the memory errors seems to have done the Zig community some psychological damage.

But more significantly, in the medium term it looks likely that AI coding is going to overtake the industry before Zig gets properly established. And it is going to be very hard to justify choosing Zig for your sloppy-but-functional AI-written code - why open yourself up to memory unsafety on top of everything else? Further, the Zig community appears to value a hand-crafted, 'artisanal' approach to software development, which is the very antithesis of vibecoding.

I have no particular interest in Zig as a language but definitely feel some empathy here. The industry is changing in ways that many of us are struggling to process.

In enterprise usefulness is not the end goal either. Software can be very useful, but if no one is going to pay for it, it holds very little value for the business.

The implication is that you should always strive to release software that isn’t overly buggy, isn’t slow, and is general a pleasure to use.

for me, the end user's experience goes above all.

I mean, if they really care about software correctness, I wonder why take a very discutibile position and say that "safety doesn't matter if you don't use the correct process". Yeah, I mean, having some guardrails is better than none, right? If they really cared about correctness, they would really strive to put all the possible guardrails in place, wouldn't they? Maybe they are bitter because their fav language is not as popular as the other?

But there are so many languages, I wonder why picking on Rust specifically.

What kind of 'useful'? Normative? Empirical? Prescriptive? Pragmatic?

'Useful' is a very subjective north star.