161–170 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
And yet, all I ever see are attacks against these convenient bogeymen with artistic exaggerations like yours... but I never see the bogeymen themselves.
I am genuinely jealous.
Also, I know you made a typo, but it did make me laugh
Bogeymen is what you meant
Boogymen reminds me of the joke in Millenium Man (How do you make a handkerchief dance - put a little boogie in it)
There's a book that changed a lot of the way I think about attention and media [0]. The book isn't very good, but it flags something relevant here. There is a huge asymmetry between the reach of a big, flashy announcement (here: bun was re-written in memory-safe rust in a couple weeks), and the relatively small reach of a correction (often just a footnote on an old article, here a GH issue). This asymmetry is well un…
I thought you were going to call out the problem in the other direction: There has not been a "big, flashy announcement" because the port is a work in progress. It's not done or released. The only big flashy announcements I see are these drive-by dunk attempts on the work in progress code combined with attempts to imply that they said it was done or perfect. The rewrite was a code translation meant to be a starting p…
FWIW what is being discussed is not memory problems, it's breaking rust invariants (the unsafe code has to follow specific rules, e.g. annotate lifetimes properly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zig rejected Bun's proposed contribution because it was a bad contribution, which they explained at length. Zig should not be made to "budge" on bad contributions. It seems you think Zig is unreasonable for rejecting bad code that happens to also be AI-generated, but believe it's reasonable for a project to be forced to accept bad code because it is AI?
No, I think Zig should reject bad AI contributions and accept good AI contributions. That is not Zig policy, they reject all AI-authored contributions. Not sure why you're inventing a stance for me to be arguing against, when the Zig compiler stance is publicly articulated as exactly what I'm describing.
I think an outright rejection of AI contributions makes sense, regardless, and has nothing to do with politics. A Zig developer was forced into writing a long-form post to justify rejecting Bun's awful contribution (lest their PR be sullied, and then it was anyways), and the act of writing that post probably took 10 or 20x more human time and effort than Bun's contribution. Now multiply that by 100 for every random fucking moron with an LLM submitting a contribution. That is not sustainable. Open source maintainers of popular projects would have to make rejecting AI PRs their full time job and stop developing the project itself altogether, if they took them seriously and reviewed at length to conclusively identify whether a PR is good or bad. Given that 99.99% of AI PRs are bad, it's simply not worth it. You cannot possibly expect humans to spend more time reviewing code than drive-by contributors spent generating it, especially when many of them are unpaid volunteers. It's an absolutely ridiculous expectation.
> Please consider not vibe coding rust as AIs are not good at writing Rust and also hire a real rust dev Isn't the whole point of AI companies using Rust that it's explicit, safe, and AIs are fairly good at writing it?
Related: If AI writes your code, why use Python? (which notes why Rust has taken off for LLMs) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48100433
There's a book that changed a lot of the way I think about attention and media [0]. The book isn't very good, but it flags something relevant here. There is a huge asymmetry between the reach of a big, flashy announcement (here: bun was re-written in memory-safe rust in a couple weeks), and the relatively small reach of a correction (often just a footnote on an old article, here a GH issue). This asymmetry is well un…
> a big, flashy announcement (here: bun was re-written in memory-safe rust in a couple weeks) Did they even claim it was "memory-safe"? Every discussion of this topic has had dozens of comments noting that their vibed codebase is bursting at the seams with unaudited unsafe blocks, lightly reviewed by people who seem to not only seem to not understand Rust, but who seem incensed at the idea of needing to understand an…
they didn't,
actually the port is trying to be mostly 1:1 and in turn is mostly unsafe rust, which means no benefits initially
but also doing the 1:1 port to mostly unsafe rust is also only the first step of a full port, you then incrementally go through it fixing issues and remove "unsafe" usage. (And long term likely also doing some refactoring to using more idiomatic rust, but that has less priority).
The problem is there was no blog port describing the whole thing to someone without contextual knowledge. Instead just linked PRs which is in this case somewhat close to a "as if nearly all people only read the HN headline" case :/
Like a more context giving version of the first HN post would have something on the line of `Show HN: Bun is porting to safe rust (PR link), starting with an AI based automatized port to mostly unsafe rust which once it behaves mostly the same as Bun in the test suite will likely be merged. But must be followed up with incremental PRs to remove unsafeness, and likely also a lot of unsoundness related to the way it's ported (some explanation about why this port will have unsoundness).`
After this was merged, my company made the decision to migrate everything away from bun and back to node. I don't say this lightly... Jarred is a guy that I held such immense respect for, and its sad to see the course he's charted for a project I spent a lot of time proselytizing internally. Its frankly a betrayal of trust.
There’s no way they had time to review the code. This just seems so wildly irresponsible for such an important and high profile project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author kept bragging about classes of bugs that would not happen with Rust.
A bug-for-bug port to Rust is the first step to fixing that. Assuming the port is actually 1:1 without any behavioral changes, these bugs already exist in the Zig code. The difference is now it's known where effort can be dedicated in order to one day have a memory-safe release of Bun. People have absolutely lost their mind over this and completely forgotten the benefits Rust gives you. I feel like I've gone back 10…
The "1:1" assumption is a massive unjustified assumption. Rust and Zig have different memory models, so it's possible to do a "1:1" translation of Zig code to Rust and end up with undefined behavior in Rust.
For example, Zig code might make assumptions about lifetimes based on implicit knowledge of which allocator was used for some memory. That could cause problems in Rust if you erase the lifetime https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/blob/main/src/bun_core/string...
This Bun rewrite feels like a potential Mythos marketing stunt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, all I ever see are attacks against these convenient bogeymen with artistic exaggerations like yours... but I never see the bogeymen themselves.
You've never seen the Rust evangelists? I am genuinely jealous. Also, I know you made a typo, but it did make me laugh Bogeymen is what you meant Boogymen reminds me of the joke in Millenium Man (How do you make a handkerchief dance - put a little boogie in it)
Makes you think who is who in this situation. Bullies screaming they are the victims.