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

281–290 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#281

Post by dzonga »

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.

dude was writing slop before A.I. Andrew called him out.

I don't write Rust - but I sure know that I'm not supposed to use 'unsafe'.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#282

Post by fourseventy »

vitorfblima wrote: post #250
Havoc wrote: post #82

> Two, I actually don't have any personal criticisms of Jarred That’s quite a statement to make at the end of a post that seems to contain little else…all just thinly veiled. Saying someone has „beginner energy“ but reframing it as a faux positive (this person fails and thus learns) Or saying the grapevine says someone is a „stinky manager“? Basically I’m not saying this person is bad it’s just that I need to bring u…

I'm quite confused by this. Is calling someone a "stinky manager" a personal attack? It's funny that we can't differentiate the person from his "job". I work with some shitty managers, but I don't hold it against them on a personal level...

Are you serious? If I told you to your face "you are shitty at your job" you don't see that as a personal attack?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#283

Post by orangedog »

vitorfblima wrote: post #250
Havoc wrote: post #82

> Two, I actually don't have any personal criticisms of Jarred That’s quite a statement to make at the end of a post that seems to contain little else…all just thinly veiled. Saying someone has „beginner energy“ but reframing it as a faux positive (this person fails and thus learns) Or saying the grapevine says someone is a „stinky manager“? Basically I’m not saying this person is bad it’s just that I need to bring u…

I'm quite confused by this. Is calling someone a "stinky manager" a personal attack? It's funny that we can't differentiate the person from his "job". I work with some shitty managers, but I don't hold it against them on a personal level...

You do your job for hours every week, it is undoubtedly part of you. Calling somebody that is very personal and rude. I'm shocked that there are this many people who don't find issue with it. It removes any kindness from the post and turns it all up to 11. I's deeply personal.

Do some of you really talk to others like this and find no issue with it? It's hard to say words like that and not end up with deep schisms and hatred.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#284

Post by alienbaby »

uludag wrote: post #263
lins1909 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, I'm very confused by the last part of your comment. You put it into an LLM to...understand the tone? Is that supposed to convince me of something?

Very weird indeed. People must not realize that you can completely change the response you get back from an LLM by how you ask questions. Any bias can implicitly be implanted in the question you ask and drastically modify the response. This is what I got Gemini to say about the article: The author’s tone in this piece can be described as brutally candid, deeply relieved, and unapologetically sarcastic. very different…

this is what worries me. I have friends that love what AI tells them about their personal pet 'thing' and how awesome it is. Yet not one of them has even tried once to get the AI to criticise it's own answers, and hence learn that you can trivially get an AI to make a convincing-_sounding case for any point of view.

I tell them to try, and they laugh at me as they roll their eyes and waffle on about 'tricking' the AI like its some kind of hacking.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#285

Post by dofm »

lins1909 wrote: post #125
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 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.

FWIW I was really interested in Zig and now I see that its lead developer is thin-skinned and bitter and has confused minimal criticism of his project with an attack on his person.

This is such a bad look and it's also flatly self-contradictory. He spends time in his conclusion asserting he doesn't have any personal criticisms of Jarred but he's fully happy to claim, reframe and repeat everyone else's, even criticisms he evidently heard in private.

You can also see that it was incompletely rewritten from a pure, personalised and personally-directed rant: "I noticed that you…" does not belong with the rest of the text.

Whatever the merits of Claude-driven rewrites (I suspect few, long-term), the article he is responding to has little to none of the vituperative quality of his own.

I think if it needed a response, and I was this angry, I would have written this whole post as a draft, filed it away in Apple Notes, and then posted "I have, yes, seen the article on the Bun blog; you don't need to send me it anymore! I will respond to parts of it in the future as and when they are particularly relevant."

Writing the response post can be valuable as emotional release or exploration. Posting it in this sprawling, mean form was dumb.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#286

Post by conartist6 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #273
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…

> AI did steal open source knowledge It's really sad to see my fellow FOSS enthusiasts adopt this very strange vocabulary from the anti-pirate people. No, no one has stolen anything, the knowledge is still out there. No, you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it. Literally the point for me and others is that what we put out can be used by anyone for anything, that's why…

Fine, they're leeches. My problem is that if everyone behaved as selfishly as they do, there would be no more nice things for anyone.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#287

Post by orangedog »

bakugo wrote: post #147
daishi55 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just one long ad hominem

Part of it might feel like ad hominem, but I think the bluntness is justified in this case. It provides some pretty important context on the situation. As an outside observer who knew little about Zig and Bun, the impression I got is that the rewrite came out of nowhere, and that the Zig community was surprised by it. The post makes it quite clear that this wasn't the case, and describes how the actions and overall m…

You can be blunt without being hateful or an asshole. It's not about PR, it's about treating other people as human beings.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#288

Post by orangedog »

nesarkvechnep wrote: post #178
preommr wrote: post #121

There are astute comments about the post's tone elsewhere in this thread[0] But this killed my hopes for Zig. The drama is fun, and Andrew is maybe even admirable in his earnest, but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project. I know that's boring and uninspired, but that's what I want my tech stack and it's management to be. Also, maybe Jarred was a net negative, but bun was also a real…

In what way the article convinced you that Andrew Kelley is not professional enough for a serious project like Zig? Isn't his contribution to the language what's important?

He's leading the community. Not having basic professional does indeed kill them vibe for some of us. When is he going to pile on somebody else he disagrees with?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#289

Post by jazzypants »

roetlich wrote: post #170
grahar64 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are using that right. Saying someone is bringing a bad vibe to your project, as the point he has a bad vibe is just stating the conclusion. Like if someone calls you a bad programmer and doesn't hire you as a programmer, isn't ad hominem

No, the discussion started with a the article from Bun, stating that rust has some technical advantages for them. The response from the Zig creator is a bunch of personal attacks directed at one guy, like calling him a stinky manager. All of these are fully unrelated to which language is better for Bun. This is like the textbook definition of an ad hominem.

Ad Hominem is only a fallacy when the speaker's personal qualities are irrelevant to the topic at hand. When one man has unilateral control over a project, you have to consider it as an extension of their personality.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#290

Post by dom96 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #271
neutronicus wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nah, corpo-speak is the original slop. The result of too many comms/legal inputs to a conversation. Professional communication is direct, clear, and ideally courteous (but only to a point).

Calling someone’s code “slop” surely isn’t professional nor courteous.
Post reply on HN