Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 754 posts

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#161

Post by NewsaHackO »

akagusu wrote: post #30

What does this mean for Zig? Few big popular projects use Zig, if they start to move away from it, what Zig's future will look like?

I think the issue is that Zig lost their biggest project, which was a posterboy project for real uses of Zig. Worse, the project felt like Zig wasn't meeting their needs, to the point they abandoned Zig and rewrote their entire project in a different language. Really bad signal for anyone thinking of using Zig for a big project. It is still in beta, but has there been any situation like this, where a upcoming programming language was abandoned by its biggest external project and still was able to be considered a successful language after that?

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#162

Post by thayne »

leecommamichael wrote: post #47
Tiberium wrote: post #34

I just want to comment that I think it's a good change if we look past the AI involvement. Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs due to them using Zig, unlike Deno which is Rust. Of course, if Bun's Rust port has tons of `unsafe`, it won't magically solve them all, but it'll still get better

Is your claim that using Zig ends in an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs?" Wouldn't that mean that it isn't even feasible to make high-quality software with such a tool? There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++, so what is Zig doing wrong?

It is much harder to write quality stuff in c/c++ that doesn't have memory bugs (use after free, out of bounds access, use of unitialized memory, double free, memory races, etc.). I wouldn't say it isn't feasible to build high quality software in those languages, but even the highest quality software written in those languages has these types of bugs. Zig is better than c, and maybe a little bit better than c++, especially with respect to spatial memory bugs, but it doesn't provide the same garantees as rust.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#163

Post by frde_me »

nesarkvechnep wrote: post #130
dmd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want a better source than the actual author of Bun?

Authors can't exaggerate? Maybe some actual numbers can convince people.

The cool thing is the author doesn't actually have to convince anyone

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#164

Post by madspindel »

45h2avf wrote: post #135
mohsen1 wrote: post #75

Very impressive that they could do this so quickly because I have been on a similar project (porting TypeScript to Rust) for 5 months. But I guess I don't have access to Mythos and unlimited tokens. I'm also close to 100% pass rate. 99.6% at the time of writing. https://tsz.dev Rust is perfect for writing all of code using LLM. It's strict type system makes is less likely to make very dumb mistakes that other languag…

[flagged]

> We are dealing with a company of habitual liars and promoters.

Any sources to back this up?

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#167

Post by [deleted] »

inglor wrote: post #134
Jarred wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cargo check reported over 16,000 compiler errors when I wrote that message. It could not print a version number or run JavaScript. I didn’t expect it to work this quickly and I also didn’t expect the performance to be as competitive. There’ll be a blog post with more details.

Rust is really fun to work with and the compiler is great, just make sure the rewrite takes compile times into account since larger projects often have to be organized in a way that makes compilation reasonably fast.

[deleted]

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#169

Post by righthand »

esquivalience wrote: post #147
righthand wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To demonstrate engineers may not be as skilled and knowledgeable as they appear. To make such a comment then turn around and make an announcement days later indicates that the engineers are not skilled in the tools they’re using or even possibly the domain they’re working in.

I totally disagree with this! I think it's very important for experts to be able to adapt to their opinions based on evidence.

[flagged]

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#170

Post by qudat »

afavour wrote: post #46
mi_lk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs Any stats/source? Not that I think it's false > and the ugly parts look uglier (unsafe) which encourages refactoring. Looks like Bun owes that to itself to some extent, not solely because of the language

FTA: > why: I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues. it would be so nice if the language provided more powerful tools for preventing these things. Not a hard number obviously but a clear indication those issues exist.

I don’t understand: just use an agent to find all memory leaks and segfaults. I don’t get the argument if you are gonna vibe code anyway.

With unlimited tokens make it a lint rule or auto formatter.

Post reply on HN