Bun support is now limited and deprecated

Post by kant2002 » Fri, May 22, 2026, 10:49 PM UTC

phoronixrly wrote: post #304

johnfn wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bun has a test suite of tens of thousands of tests. For purely non-functional changes, like refactors or rewrites (e.g. a Rust rewrite) I rely primarily on test suites, not manual testing, in order to ensure that nothing regressed. I mean, sure, I am going to poke around, too, but the test suite is the encoding of thousands of obscure bugs and issues over years. There is no way my manual testing will be able to cover…

> Test code written by a human counts as "tested by a human". Were Bun's tests generated by an LLM? If they were, were they read by a human afterwards to be validated?

Post by truncate » Fri, May 22, 2026, 10:50 PM UTC

irishcoffee wrote: post #312

truncate wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political. I disagree that this is a political stance. People based on their experiences have formed opinions on whether they trust that model of development or not. Bun having taking extreme measure of going 100% in within a week is itself extreme positioning from their side which will likely result in extreme reactions because depending on wh…

In all sincerity, what does political even mean in this context? ELI5, I’m a toddler when it comes to the politics of AI/LLMs.

Post by ChoGGi » Fri, May 22, 2026, 10:57 PM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #73

This decision seems to based more in politics than engineering. Have you observed Bun have more segfaults, OOMs, etc, since the Rust rewrite? Have you noticed more security vulnerabilities? Have you seen more bugs? (Of course you haven't, the rewrite hasn't even landed yet.) It seems that you are making this decision because you get a bad feeling when thinking about AI involvement. I don't select my engineering tools…

Post by ChoGGi » Fri, May 22, 2026, 10:59 PM UTC

sroussey wrote: post #61

maxloh wrote: post #12

I understand their decision. How could the maintainers understand their codebase if most of it was not directly written by them? It is impossible to review the entire rewritten codebase. There are just too many lines of code, 1 million lines to be exact [1]. [1]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30412

I don’t think changing from zig to rust suddenly means that don’t know what a certain file contains or how it works or how it relates to other files. It’s all the same just different syntax. Which, by the way, is why it looks ugly to rust developers. The devs wanted the code to look familiar to them. I do think they should have called this 2.0 though. Would not feel such a rush (1.3.14 has a few regressions, and no o…

Post by ChoGGi » Fri, May 22, 2026, 11:04 PM UTC

tomjakubowski wrote: post #293

somebehemoth wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not write the rust code. AI wrote that code. Your response is side stepping the primary issue people have with the rewrite: no human has read and understood all the code AI wrote.

I agree but would propose the weaker argument: no set of human contributors have, put together, read and understood all the code. Even in artisanal-coded projects of sufficient size, it's rare that any one human has read and understood all of it.