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

431–440 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#431

Post by mathisfun123 »

conartist6 wrote: post #422
threatofrain wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, why isn't your attention focused on the claim that Jarred lies in professional settings and in public? Jarred himself shows up to post receipts with barely any commentary, showing where the focus is. Anyways, what do you think about Jarred? Do you think he lies about Andrew in public? What was the term Andrew used? Outright fabrication ?

I value competence above all else, and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence. I wouldn't claim he's lying because I have no first-hand knowledge to base such a claim on. I just think his whole persona is about selling the idea that "you don't need to look at the code anymore". I would have a hard time calling that a lie because I think he really believes it. It does mean that I…

> I value competence above all else

This is very beginner energy lol. Are you possibly a teenager?

> and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence.

Your username name is conartist6....

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#432

Post by mathisfun123 »

orangedog wrote: post #291
dofm wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 criticism…

This entire thread puts me out on devs. I stuns me that there are this many people who either excuse or cheer on being hateful. Wanting to use a project becaues the author was this rude....what? Just a complete lack of emotional intelligence. You do not treat people like this.

[flagged]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#433

Post by skydhash »

fooster wrote: post #67
skydhash wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve not seen any languages that does not require meticulous care to avoid runtime bugs. Type checking and lifetime ownership eliminate some, but not all of them.

So less meticulous care then?

Not really, as you always need to check back on your assertions, especially at the boundary points where information about types and ownership are more axiomatic than the result of logical inference.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#434

Post by dpatterbee »

dataflow wrote: post #369
dpatterbee wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not personal criticisms, those are all professional criticisms. There are many people who don't seem to know the different between work and life and so they may conflate the two, but to me it's pretty obvious.

> There are many people who don't seem to know the different between work and life and so they may conflate the two, but to me it's pretty obvious. Nobody is conflating anything, you're just misinterpreting the same words with different meanings. A professional criticism can, in fact, be unprofessional, and even a personal attack. These are not mutually exclusive. > Those are not personal criticisms You're using "per…

Yes, professional has two meanings in use here. Professional as in relating to one's profession, and professional as in how one may be expected to behave when carrying out one's profession.

In my comment I was using the former.

I'm not really sure what you're on about me "misinterpreting" something. The author of the article claimed to not have personal criticisms, and I was pointing out that there's a standard interpretation of those words that is true.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#435

Post by franktankbank »

Aurornis wrote: post #257
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…

It’s an inconsistent statement to make when the rest of the article contains ad hominem attacks like these: > The grapevine was large and healthy and full of juicy grapes, and all those grapes contained the juice of the same message: Jarred was a stinky manager. > Jarred was already writing slop well before he had access to LLMs. This is a weirdly childish post. I enjoy a good post where someone speaks their mind wit…

I think its worthwhile to hear how some self promoting person is actually a piece of crap.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#436

Post by roetlich »

miyoji wrote: post #376
roetlich wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is like the textbook definition of an ad hominem. No, it isn't at all. Ad hominem is only in effect and fallacious when the logic turns on the personal attack. "You're wrong because you're stupid" is ad hominem. "You're wrong and also you're stupid" is impolite, but logically fine. To clarify, I think that the entire "History" section is unrelated to Andrew's argument, only the "Addressing the Blog Post" secti…

Oh yes, I didn't clarify that I meant an argumentum ad hominem, which isn't the same thing as the informal fallacy of the same name. So yeah, I agree, this isn't directly fallacious.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#437

Post by cindyllm »

elktown wrote: post #379
mattstir wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't to avoid calling out "bad" behaviour, it's that you can do so with a professional (or at least not actively childish) tone. Using phrases like "stinky manager" while taking multiple jabs at Jarred's personal and educational background (implying by not going to university he was too stupid to think critically about his path forward) paints a weirdly childish yet elitist viewpoint. The blog post read…

I'm sorry but I honestly think this is just being superficial wanting to push it through some kind of corporate speak filter to be able to stomach it. > Using phrases like "stinky manager" I would've used a worse adjective given the WLB tweet etc. Is it just because stinky itself has a childish tone to it rather than something like shitty? Or do one need to reach to somewhat open-ended terms like "questionable" to be…

[dead]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#440

Post by nicce »

simonw wrote: post #417
nicce wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countering the accusation of "an outright fabrication" on the other hand is worthwhile because it's a claim that can be countered. Hmm, fuzzing integration was merged 8 months ago. First found bug mentioned 3 months ago. Bun is 4 years old. I think both arguments can be true at the same time based on this evidence. It is entirely possible that for more than 3 years team has said that no fuzzing was done, and the fi…

If you're going to accuse someone of "an outright fabrication" it's on you to check that you're not wrong before you say that.

I agree that ""an outright fabrication" is a bit too much.

But also the claims about the fuzzing in the original blog post are kinda too misleading. Fuzzing harness is basically just coverage-guided random bytes towards Bun's JS APIs and it will not really catch anything in depth from the code. Just the most obvious from the surface. And 24/7 fuzzing is introduced likely around the same time when Rust rewrite seemed to be main focus, as then the first issues were created. Current fuzzing does not give much trust about the code stability, but indeed the fuzzing has been started and likely improves in the future if someone puts some work for the harness.

Post reply on HN