Not sure I follow. Is "fuzzing their Zig code" somehow related to adding a Fuzzilli integration to Bun?

Andrew means the zig build test --fuzz command probably the built in zig fuzzer, that's the tool that is in his scope.

I have no buns to pick here in this discussion really, but doesn't it strike you as slightly pointless to specifically address one particularity of Andrew's blog post while not addressing a single other thing from it, or maybe try to move one step up to about the discussion itself, or something else?

Again, I have no dog in this fight, I "worship" neither of you, I'm just curious about the whole conversation apparently degrading rather than anyone of you trying to step in a different direction.

Your links show you used a fuzzer, but that doesn't address the other half of Andrew's statement. Is Andrew misreporting/misremembering your conversations?

EDIT: It's really telling that asking a factual clarification question is somehow downvote worthy. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but this epitomizes the reason online discussions devolve in to flame wars (even moreso than real life, though it happens more and more there as well).

The answer could be as simple as we didn't use a fuzzer until recently so both are accurate. I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking. Yet somehow just asking is triggering to people.

Without having any opinion on whether or not the Bun team was meaningfully fuzzing their codebase... Andrew's claim was not about whether or not they were, it was noting that the story was different between what they claimed in conversation and what they stated in this article.