Live data from Hacker News

Rewriting Bun in Rust

bun.com

11–20 of 560 posts

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hacker News does not have a meme-y culture, and this post takes this topic pretty seriously and is technically interesting. It's not so much that I missed that it was a joke, I just don't think that it really added to the discussion. What you've edited it to is a much better comment.

[flagged]

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#12
> Claude Code v2.1.181 (released June 17th) and later use the Rust port of Bun.

It seems the reports of Bun's death have been greatly exaggerated.

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#14
post #9
post #5

Without commenting on Bun itself as a project, or the nature of the rewrite, it can't be good for Zig that a naive rewrite away from it fixed memory leaks, improved stability, shrunk binary size by 20%, and improved performance by 5%.

I would guess that people looking to use Zig understand that those are project concerns and not language concerns.

The stability gains are a direct language concern as mentioned throughout the article.

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#15
post #5

Without commenting on Bun itself as a project, or the nature of the rewrite, it can't be good for Zig that a naive rewrite away from it fixed memory leaks, improved stability, shrunk binary size by 20%, and improved performance by 5%.

Yeah but they turned it into something unreadable. Call it a skill issue if you wish.

I just haven’t found another language that just makes sense. Zig doesn’t hide anything from you

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#18
post #5

Without commenting on Bun itself as a project, or the nature of the rewrite, it can't be good for Zig that a naive rewrite away from it fixed memory leaks, improved stability, shrunk binary size by 20%, and improved performance by 5%.

True, but rewrites often allow for this sort of benefit in themselves. It's possible rewriting it in zig would have yielded some of the same improvements.

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#19
post #5

Without commenting on Bun itself as a project, or the nature of the rewrite, it can't be good for Zig that a naive rewrite away from it fixed memory leaks, improved stability, shrunk binary size by 20%, and improved performance by 5%.

From a PL Theory perspective, Zig is vibe-coded.

Not sure why people use it.

Re: Rewriting Bun in Rust

#20

Where is the cost breakdown? I feel like this would be the easiest number to determine and write in this post. It's hard to believe that there have been no problems/downsides since the port.

> Where is the cost breakdown?

From the article

> Pre-merge, this took 5.9 billion uncached input tokens, 690 million output tokens, and 72 billion cached input token reads — around $165,000 at API pricing

> It's hard to believe that there have been no problems/downsides since the port.

A significant portion of the article was dedicated to the 19 regressions they've found. Starting here: https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust#porting-mistakes

Post reply on HN