Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And now like a winey baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. I didn't see any whining from Jarred, this seems like misplaced sentiment > It’s purely politics-based The linked twitter thread gives clear technical justifications
Jarreds Twitter is a Claude Code Billboard
Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
361–370 of 754 posts
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this experiment ends up resulting in a real migration path, I think that would be completely awesome. Maybe it means we have a chance to revive older projects such as ngspice [0], but with modern affordances and better safety properties. From your post, though, it sounds like Bun may have been a pretty direct rewrite, without too many hard choices along the way. Is that fair? [0] https://ngspice.sourceforge.io/
[flagged]
Then I try to understand and extract the actual formulas, and there isn't a clean formula layer anywhere. All is procedural, e.g. in `b4v6temp.c` formulas are tangled with branching, caching, model-state mutation. Extracting the computation, embedding cleanly and exposing through a sane API feels hair-pulling.
So yeah, maintained, but not as in 'modern, embeddable, understandable software component' I'd be looking forward in a rewrite. Maybe not even touch the simulation core, just rewriting Embedding/API layer and the UX would already be a big deal.
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software companies have been about automating human labor since the invention of computers. It's the whole damn point. Why do you think finance used to be (sometimes still is) the head of the IT dept? Because we automated accounting away. Then typists. Then secretaries. Then drafting. Etc etc.
[flagged]
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> It’s engineering.
Significantly, but not totally. The marketing value can't be ignored.
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#365Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#366Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think given the current mood of things, it would be prudent to not make such strong assertions on anything. Trust is in increasingly short supply these days.
Nothing Jarred said is an assertion other than "There’ll be a blog post with more details."
These are two assertions. There could have been a prior secret rewrite that took much longer than six days and this is a marketing stunt for Anthropic. In case people still don't get it, Jarred works for Anthropic and Bun belongs to Anthropic.
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zig is a great low-level language. It's much better than C, while not being so much larger as e.g. Rust or C++. AFAICT Zig does well in embedded development, and should continue to do so. Note that Zig is not even 1.0 yet.
Yeah but now they got the fame of the language that fumbled the ball because of an overly onerous anti-AI stance.
Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show code
Err https://github.com/petgraph/petgraph What are you asking for exactly?
You're correcting someone, so it's clear that your understanding isn't universal, and example code is the absolute minimum.