Zig → Rust porting guide

Post by lowbloodsugar » Tue, May 05, 2026, 4:18 AM UTC

neomantra wrote: post #154

endospore wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently. I'm afraid one reason could be that zig doesn't want to accept code from the bun fork in the first place (because of LLM usage, deviation and other reasons)

One non-obvious reason is that an important aspect of their community is to shepherd new contributors [1]. LLMs crushing everything would reduce that. More obvious is all the toil for maintainers dealing with LLM PRs (broadly it’s an issue). The Zig maintainers prefer to put their energy into improving people and fostering those relationship. [1] https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/

Post by Philpax » Tue, May 05, 2026, 4:23 AM UTC

dimator wrote: post #178

allthetime wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're already at a disadvantage having to stuff the context and spend extra tokens coercing the model in the correct direction compared to it already knowing what to do (rust, ts, go, etc.) Here, I just did a quick test with claude. 1. "make a simple tcp echo server that uses rust" compiles and runs - took a few seconds to generate. 2. "make a simple tcp echo server that uses zig" result: compile error, took literal…

i mean, if zig is doing its best (inadvertently) at shooing off slop jockeys, then i already have more confidence that: 1. the language and stdlib are written by people who know what they're doing 2. packages in the ecosystem, at the barest level, are written by those who didn't leave after a few compile errors they couldn't reason about

Post by Philpax » Tue, May 05, 2026, 4:24 AM UTC

slopinthebag wrote: post #188

shadowfiend wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gp's interpretation of that tweet is such a completely incorrect reading as to make one think it's likely disingenuous.

> I expect OSS to go the opposite direction: no human contribution allowed. How is it an incorrect interpretation? Jared is indeed pitching/suggesting/predicting that human contribution will not be allowed in the near future, i.e. banned.

Post by dsissitka » Tue, May 05, 2026, 4:27 AM UTC

archargelod wrote: post #59

Linked commit is probably not the most convincing for this tagline. Here's a branch[0] of Claude mass rewriting Zig code into Rust which is currently at 773,950 additions and 151 deletions: [0]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/compare/claude/phase-a-port

    -------------------------------------------------
    Language      files    blank    comment      code
    -------------------------------------------------
    Zig            1298    79693      60320    571814
    TypeScript     2600    67434     115281    471122
    JavaScript     4344    36947      37653    290873
    C++             583    27129      19117    215531
    C               111    21577      83914    199576

Post by postepowanieadm » Tue, May 05, 2026, 4:33 AM UTC

cybercatgurrl wrote: post #148

andkenneth wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They recently tried to upstream an improvement to zig, but were prevented from doing so because zig has a hard and fast "no AI code" rule. Whether you think this response is trying to put pressure on zig or whether they're just moving for practical reasons is up to you. It's probably a bit of both.

good, more reason to stay away from zig