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

211–220 of 754 posts

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

#211

Post by nhatcher »

Jarred wrote: post #105
legerdemain wrote: post #38

From 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019226 > I work on Bun and this is my branch > > This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely. > > I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get i…

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.

That's a post I am eagerly waiting to read.

Basically we are seeing now an "inverse Hofstadter's Law" where doing something with an LLM takes less time thanexpected even when you take into account this law.

I am a Rust developper myself but I really love Zig and Bun. I am just overly curious of all this.

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

#212

Post by dzonga »

4aksh19 wrote: post #74
legerdemain wrote: post #38

From 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019226 > I work on Bun and this is my branch > > This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely. > > I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get i…

"No one has the intention of building a wall" - Walter Ulbricht, chairman of the central committee, a couple of months before the Berlin Wall was built. The AI companies and their associates are beginning to surpass that level of denials and lies.

you know this whole exercise is both a marketing exercise and a way to make noise.

would the world come to a standstill tomorrow if every Bun instance out there ran on Node.js ?

they know their A.I can't sell without the noise that it's now on the edge of the frontier. this is hype.

zig adopting a strict 'no LLM' policy affects the LLM vendors.

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

#214

Post by nesk_ »

anilgulecha wrote: post #9

I think the industry is moving to English as the programming language, and specifications-context-tdd as the framework for building software. Many find it distasteful, and many finding liberating. I think it's broadly correlates with how they feel about expressing themselves in english vs say C++. As a side question, is there anyone who's using LLMs primarily in non-english mode to program? I suspect there's quite a…

I use French nearly all the time, it works well. Not that I can't write English prompts, but I find it easier to use my native language.

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

#215

Post by sergiotapia »

jared's post is singlehandedly shitting on Zig's reputation. not good juju for him to post like that.

"I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues"

bun was zig's poster child. if it moves away, it becomes yet another random language like nim or crystal.

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

#216

Post by johncolanduoni »

dzonga wrote: post #212
4aksh19 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No one has the intention of building a wall" - Walter Ulbricht, chairman of the central committee, a couple of months before the Berlin Wall was built. The AI companies and their associates are beginning to surpass that level of denials and lies.

you know this whole exercise is both a marketing exercise and a way to make noise. would the world come to a standstill tomorrow if every Bun instance out there ran on Node.js ? they know their A.I can't sell without the noise that it's now on the edge of the frontier. this is hype. zig adopting a strict 'no LLM' policy affects the LLM vendors.

I don’t think the Zig project adopting a strict ‘no LLM’ policy affects the LLM vendors at all. How many developers are working on the Zig project itself that will (maybe) now not buy a Claude subscription? I can buy that this is a marketing stunt, but nobody at the top cares if a relatively small open source project doesn’t allow AI contributions.

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

#217

Post by alphabeta3r56 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #114
suddenlybananas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My point is, there’s no chance of a “haves and have nots” emerging, any more than electricity turned out that way in the modern world. Energy costs vary widely across the world and that has enormous capacity for the economies of different countries and their industrial capacity.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-e... Electricity looks pretty even. Higher in Europe but they can afford that.

Due to purchasing power parity, it is actually much hhigher in poorer countries, in that they are absolutely still asking the have nots.

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

#218

Post by IshKebab »

nyrikki wrote: post #190
sysguest wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. haven't used zig...(only used rust) but zig doesn't solve those problems?

Zig is a middle ground. It solves some of the common foot-guns in C, Without the costs of affine substructural typing that offers Rust its super powers. I am of the opinion that it is horses for courses and not a universal better proposition. Because my needs don’t fit in with Rust’s decisions very well I will use zig for personal projects when needed. I just need linked lists, graphs etc… While hopefully someone can…

Fwiw you don't need unsafe for graphs or linked lists in Rust. At least not directly - these things can be abstracted. The petgraph crate is the most popular for graphs. I'm not sure about linked lists because linked lists are the wrong choice 99.9% of the time.

I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Rust and outside of FFI, I've written I think one line of unsafe Rust.

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

#219

Post by alphabeta3r56 »

8note wrote: post #43
tmaly wrote: post #36

Just a cautionary case of porting to Rust using AI https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct...

i think theres a different lesson to be taken from those cases - the LLM will build to what you give a feedback loop for. if you give just the logical tests, it wont consider the speed at all. if you included tests that measure the speed and ask the llm to match the performance, itll do that too. its the same class of error as everything else with llms. it has no common sense context for things people consider import…

Question is, are our optimization functions well specified enough? (No)

How important is well specified opt function? No one knows. We will find out

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

#220

Post by johncolanduoni »

dandellion wrote: post #204
christopherwxyz wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s disrespectful to immediately jump to adversarial conclusions from a simple desire to refactor and poor netiquette.

Four days ago there was no intention to rewrite, now it's a simple desire to refactor. It's not adversarial conclusion, it's pointing out the clear hypocrisy.

Running an experiment, the experiment being more successful than you thought, and then deciding to put more effort into a bigger experiment is not hypocrisy. It’s engineering. If you think some of the objective facts they’re putting out (like test coverage and performance) are lies, go and prove it instead of appealing to emotion.
Post reply on HN