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

Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 822 posts

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#301

Post by mgrandl »

hxtk wrote: post #281
alfanick wrote: post #260

I'm confused. Never heard of Bun until a few days ago here on HN. It's some nodejs wrapper thingy, written in Zig, and someone decided to use LLM to rewrite it in Rust. Is this a big deal? Who is even using this software? Why is this big?

I think relatively few people are probably running Bun in production, but as a dependency management system and bundler for the JavaScript ecosystem, it's similar to `uv` from the Python ecosystem in how much faster it is compared to the most popular alternatives so it's fairly popular in that space.

PNPM is just as fast and much more reliable.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#302

Post by _aavaa_ »

ordu wrote: post #289
gm678 wrote: post #249

$ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ | wc -l 10428 $ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ -l | wc -l 736 Language Files Lines Code Comments Blanks ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Rust 1443 929213 732281 116293 80639 Zig 1298 711112 574563 59118 77431 TypeScript 2604 654684 510464 82254 61966 JavaScript 4370 364928 293211 36108 35609 C 111 305123 205875 79077 20171 C++ 586 262475 217111 19004 26360 C Header 779 100979…

The half of the files contain 'unsafe' keyword? It doesn't seem as a good rewrite. What is the point of rewrite into Rust, if ~half of your code is still unsafe?

1. Rewrite from zig to rust in as close to zig as you can.

2. Turn into idiomatic rust.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#304

Post by fbernier »

ordu wrote: post #289
gm678 wrote: post #249

$ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ | wc -l 10428 $ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ -l | wc -l 736 Language Files Lines Code Comments Blanks ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Rust 1443 929213 732281 116293 80639 Zig 1298 711112 574563 59118 77431 TypeScript 2604 654684 510464 82254 61966 JavaScript 4370 364928 293211 36108 35609 C 111 305123 205875 79077 20171 C++ 586 262475 217111 19004 26360 C Header 779 100979…

The half of the files contain 'unsafe' keyword? It doesn't seem as a good rewrite. What is the point of rewrite into Rust, if ~half of your code is still unsafe?

Bun is fundamentally a boundary-heavy system and it also rolls its own version of a lot of things that people typically use via libraries, where unsafe is hidden. (no async, memory arenas, etc). It also uses FFI heavily which requires unsafe.

It also looks like the top 2 maintainers are currently actively working on getting the amount of unsafe down and it's going down quickly.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#305

Post by gmueckl »

rafram wrote: post #294
losvedir wrote: post #276

Wow. This is going to be interesting to follow. There's absolutely no way any of this code was reviewed, but maybe we're in a post-human world now where you can trust the models to write and review the code. This is like Gastown but on a higher profile project. Will be fascinating to see how this project is able to add new features going forward (or even _if_ it will be able to). Does anyone know how exactly Bun is u…

> you can trust the models to write and review the code You definitely cannot!

You can trust them to flag some things during review that may or may not be relevant. But just like with human review and unit testing, you cannot guarantee the absence of bugs after an LLM code review. It's just another set of (virtual) eyeballs.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#306

Post by sunrunner »

vitaminCPP wrote: post #253

> +1009257 -4024 Bun is now over 1M lines of Rust code. This is approaching the size of the Rust compiler itself; except that BunJs is mostly a JavaScript interpreter wrapper + a reimplementation of the NodeJS library (Rust STD wrapper). I think BunJS is becoming the canary for software complexity management in the LLM era.

I'm not sure if it's just the leading '+' or if there are other factors for phone number detection on iOS, but on mobile the line count changes are underlined and I can tap it to start a call, which, if it is because of the diff size, is something I find pretty amusing.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#307

Post by torben-friis »

losvedir wrote: post #276

Wow. This is going to be interesting to follow. There's absolutely no way any of this code was reviewed, but maybe we're in a post-human world now where you can trust the models to write and review the code. This is like Gastown but on a higher profile project. Will be fascinating to see how this project is able to add new features going forward (or even _if_ it will be able to). Does anyone know how exactly Bun is u…

Does anyone know how exactly Bun is used by Anthropic? Is it a part of Claude Code?

It seems to be used by anthropic as a way to shift the discussion window into it being acceptable that you yolomerge millions of lines.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#308

Post by petcat »

gm678 wrote: post #249

$ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ | wc -l 10428 $ rg 'unsafe [{]' src/ -l | wc -l 736 Language Files Lines Code Comments Blanks ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Rust 1443 929213 732281 116293 80639 Zig 1298 711112 574563 59118 77431 TypeScript 2604 654684 510464 82254 61966 JavaScript 4370 364928 293211 36108 35609 C 111 305123 205875 79077 20171 C++ 586 262475 217111 19004 26360 C Header 779 100979…

Cool you can just search specifically for potentially unsafe code in Rust. How do you search for unsafe code in Zig? Or do you just have to assume it's everywhere?

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#309

Post by 12_throw_away »

perching_aix wrote: post #22

PR so thick, the page failed to load the first time I opened it, and the comments still continue to fail to load. Absolutely hilarious. Though that may be just GitHub having a normal one, hard to tell these days. 1 009 257 lines added 4024 lines removed 6755 commits 2188 files touched I haven't the slightest clue how anyone would even remotely hope to review this. I guess by just using even more AI? Or maybe by throw…

The maddening thing is that there's a right way to do this if you have the patience and professionalism to do so. It requires building a bit of scaffolding (feature flags, cross-language calling support, harnesses for shadow testing, etc.), then you ship-of-theseus the codebase incrementally. This is not even incompatible with LLM-assistance, plus it breaks the thing up into smaller, reviewable changes that don't break your diff tool!

However, doing it the right way takes a bit more time, involves community feedback, and doesn't produce headlines about huge codebases being rewritten by LLMs in just a few days, so ...

Post reply on HN