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

My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

andrewkelley.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#191

Post by ptx »

0x000xca0xfe wrote: post #98
SuperV1234 wrote: post #9

> The main problem, however, was code quality. > The sleight of hand misdirects the reader away from the main way bugs are eliminated: by dedicating engineering resources to it. Perhaps the amount of bugs comes from using a C-like language that requires meticulous manual care to avoid writing runtime bugs. Even C++ would be a safer choice because of RAII. When you have to dedicate significant resources to avoid/fix r…

Memory safety problems are still possible in the new Rust Bun: At the time of writing, about 4% of Bun's Rust code sits inside an unsafe block (~13,000 unsafe keywords across ~27,000 lines / ~780,000 lines), and 78% of those blocks are a single line — a pointer that came from C++, or one call into a C library.

> 78% of those blocks are a single line — a pointer that came from C++, or one call into a C library

Don't those blocks need some additional lines for error checking to prevent the unsafety from spreading to the safe code?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#192

Post by neutronicus »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157
tuckwat wrote: post #101

This is unprofessional and embarrassing for Zig. I know very little about Jared but his article yesterday, which I read, seemed appreciative of Zig. I now learn he's donated significant chunks of money to them. This entire article is publicly and personally attacking him for choosing a different product. It's insane to me that Andrew thinks this post will somehow exonerate Zig when it really just makes them look chil…

> It's insane to me that Andrew thinks this post will somehow exonerate Zig when it really just makes them look childish. Antirez made a post equivalent to: you'd be a fool not to use AI to increase test coverage. Zig on the other hand has embarrassingly low test coverage given its adoption and time in development. Their stance on AI is completely childish. They could benefit massively from it, yet refuse to even con…

Childish or no, anti-AI sentiment is ubiquitous and growing.

From a PR perspective there’s a lot to gain in the short term by picking the “anti-AI” lane. And you can always change your mind later.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#193

Post by lkey »

tuckwat wrote: post #134
lins1909 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of strange to not engage with any of the points made in the article. Unlike you, I don't think the post makes them look childish at all. I think it raises a lot of valid points and makes me want to use Zig more.

Do you have bias? I'm not saying I don't have some hidden bias but I have no skin in the game. I don't use Bun or Zig or plan to. My reflection comes after reading Jarred's post yesterday, which I found interesting, and then Andrew's today. I just pasted this article into an LLM to understand the tone and the summary is: > The overall tone is deeply personal, cathartic, biting, and polemical, with flashes of humor an…

Please, I'm begging you, and the people that scan across this comment: Finishing mastering reading comprehension; It will help you for the rest of your life.

I'm not snarking, this is a problem affecting 30% or more of the population here in the states, and it's getting worse because of tools like AI. I'm not judging you, I don't think you are bad or deficient people, but this externalsing of comprehension and trust is self-harm.

Worse, it will lead you astray in ways that you won't tie back to this core problem.

To use an LLM safely you must have the discernment to understand when it has fallen into sycophancy, folly, or madness.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#194

Post by cafkafk »

That "I actually don't have any personal criticisms of Jarred" made me do a spit take, because a majority of what I had just read was absolutely a personally targeted criticism of Jarred.

Whether that's "okay" is a totally separate issue. I have no idea what the history here is, or whether this is warranted. But that was absolutely a personal criticism!

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#195

Post by zeratax »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157
tuckwat wrote: post #101

This is unprofessional and embarrassing for Zig. I know very little about Jared but his article yesterday, which I read, seemed appreciative of Zig. I now learn he's donated significant chunks of money to them. This entire article is publicly and personally attacking him for choosing a different product. It's insane to me that Andrew thinks this post will somehow exonerate Zig when it really just makes them look chil…

> It's insane to me that Andrew thinks this post will somehow exonerate Zig when it really just makes them look childish. Antirez made a post equivalent to: you'd be a fool not to use AI to increase test coverage. Zig on the other hand has embarrassingly low test coverage given its adoption and time in development. Their stance on AI is completely childish. They could benefit massively from it, yet refuse to even con…

in what way is it chidlish to have a principled position like this? you may disagree, i def use llms. but andrew has clear reasons for why he doesnt.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#196

Post by JurassicTyler »

When I read about the bun rewrite I thought no sh*t, those are the exactly the types of bugs I would expect when doing a line by line rewrite of a program in a GC language to memory managed.

I was unimpressed with the engineering from the blog, and I'm not surprised to read andrew say they claimed no fuzz testing. I know someone who interviewed at bun when it was less than 10 people (around 5 he said). Allegedly jared lowballed the fk out of my friend, claimed they had no money because they're a startup, then proceeded to offer <1% equity

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#197

Post by zeratax »

jdw64 wrote: post #186
conartist6 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who steal with AI and give no credit to the actual creative forces (that they are stamping out) are the fucking rude ones. I just return to them the kindness they show me when they say, "You made this?? I made this!!"

I understand your anger too. AI did steal open source knowledge, and I agree with that part. But separately from that, I think it's a bit unfair to talk about the people associated with it in such a dismissive way. In reality, humans aren't purely rational beings, and I can understand why the Zig philosophy and the Bun manager who joined the AI side might not have looked good from that perspective. But I think that's…

in what way were they team members?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#198

Post by nsagent »

Andrew could have been more tactful in his blog post (though as I've grown older I often find less tact to be more effective), but it really sounds like accommodating Bun was a net negative for Zig.

  When Jarred joined the Zig community about 5 years ago, I described him as someone who had strong "beginner energy".
I wouldn't call it beginner energy, though I understand it might seem like that. Rather, it's an approach to development and no amount of time changes it.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#199

Post by jdw64 »

zeratax wrote: post #197
jdw64 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your anger too. AI did steal open source knowledge, and I agree with that part. But separately from that, I think it's a bit unfair to talk about the people associated with it in such a dismissive way. In reality, humans aren't purely rational beings, and I can understand why the Zig philosophy and the Bun manager who joined the AI side might not have looked good from that perspective. But I think that's…

in what way were they team members?

fixed it.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#200

Post by neutronicus »

tuckwat wrote: post #101

This is unprofessional and embarrassing for Zig. I know very little about Jared but his article yesterday, which I read, seemed appreciative of Zig. I now learn he's donated significant chunks of money to them. This entire article is publicly and personally attacking him for choosing a different product. It's insane to me that Andrew thinks this post will somehow exonerate Zig when it really just makes them look chil…

I think he also wants to attack Anthropic by proxy.
Post reply on HN