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

471–480 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#471

Post by laurels-marts »

mchaver wrote: post #231
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am fine with people having principles and doing things their way. Not everything has to be a race to be the best. There are still plenty of people that appreciate traditional crafts. Anyway, if Zig+AI can be the next, greatest thing, can't someone just fork it and make it happen?

No one cares enough of zig to do it, people will just continue moving to Rust and similar.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#472

Post by xlii »

jsnell wrote: post #464
xlii wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU fuzzing code != fuzzing results. Through skimming it seems that integration tests were using fuzzing, but I would call it fuzzing the code itself. From "product" perspective there's no difference, but in program-compiler perspective (and e.g. raising bugs about compiler), Fuzilli isn't fuzzing. Per Wikipedia > (then...) The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, failing built-in code assertio…

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to draw here. The very specific claim[0] in the Bun blog post that Kelley is calling a fabrication was: > We fuzz Bun's runtime APIs 24/7 using Fuzzilli, the JavaScript engine fuzzer used by V8 & JavaScriptCore It does not look to be a fabrication, and is very explicit just about what they meant by fuzzing. [0] I mean, that sentence doesn't actually match Kelley's par…

For me, using Fuzzilli for testing a Zig code is not fuzzing, it's integration testing. If you're running code externally (e.g. wrapping binary) you cannot guarantee that side effect isn't caused by IO. I consider fuzzing a low level activity with many external variables removed.

Depending on where you are and how you communicate semantics matter more or less. It's very similar to compiler/transpiler. E.g. TypeScript "Compiler" is called compiler but in fact it's transpiler (it emits other high-level language as a result).

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#473

Post by miyoji »

vopi wrote: post #445
miyoji wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never once in my life cared about where a programming language kept its source and I think if anyone is using that as a basis for decision-making, they are truly a moron.

You’re telling me you would be as likely to contribute to a project hosted in CVS as compared to git (and on GitHub)?

I don't care if it's on GitHub at all, it's not hard to work with any arbitrary git remote. CVS would be a weird choice, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker on its own. Fossil or some other modern alternative VCS wouldn't be a red flag or weird at all.

But I wasn't talking about contributing to the language, which is a weird standard to use here since Zig isn't interested in outside contributors. I was talking about choosing a programming language for use for some professional or personal project. I don't give a fig what version control solutions the team chooses to use if the language is good and solves my problems, and I would consider it very strange if someone tried to argue that I shouldn't use some language because they put their code on a non-Microsoft owned server.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#474

Post by laurels-marts »

fwlr wrote: post #69

I found this post very refreshing! I’m sure it would have been very tempting to one-up the “PR-speak” of the Bun post. Likewise, it would have been very tempting to include the same set of facts that reflect negatively on Jarred, while studiously concealing one’s own opinion (eg “I heard people called him a stinky manager. I am not saying that, other people are, but I’m not”). I appreciated that it was just … genuine…

Refreshing that the author doesn’t try to conceal his character or thoughts.

The contents of his character and thoughts are quite objectionable though.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#475

Post by jorams »

hazn wrote: post #39

Despite stated otherwise in the post, this is a personal attack. Anyway, let's try to discuss something more technical: I predict Zig will lose steam, and in 2027, will lose relevance: 1) It's hardcore Anti-AI 2) It's moved to Codeberg 3) It doesn't have the momentum to sustain the disadvantages of these two decisions The project will in max 2 years make a blog post, not admitting to their mistakes, telling themselve…

> Anyway, let's try to discuss something more technical:

I'll note that this is followed by an entirely non-technical statement of opinion.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#476

Post by alkyon »

Calling someone "stinky manager" is not ad hominem. It's a way of saying that he's managerial skills are very poor. Does it relate to the argument? Very much so. Changing a bread factory into a slop factory makes Jarred a stinky manager and even a "sloppy" one

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#477

Post by pibaker »

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 now learn he's donated significant chunks of money to them.

Biting the hand that feeds you might make you an asshole. But sometimes you have to be an asshole to uphold standards and principles. I don't think Linus or Jobs would be known to produce such important technology if they don't care enough about their works to act crudely to people they consider substandard.

We can disagree with Andrew's standards of course. But saying he should not attack someone just because he took money from him is a weak criticism.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#478

Post by hazn »

jorams wrote: post #475
hazn wrote: post #39

Despite stated otherwise in the post, this is a personal attack. Anyway, let's try to discuss something more technical: I predict Zig will lose steam, and in 2027, will lose relevance: 1) It's hardcore Anti-AI 2) It's moved to Codeberg 3) It doesn't have the momentum to sustain the disadvantages of these two decisions The project will in max 2 years make a blog post, not admitting to their mistakes, telling themselve…

> Anyway, let's try to discuss something more technical: I'll note that this is followed by an entirely non-technical statement of opinion.

something more cybernetic, my friend :)

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#479

Post by pdpi »

jsnell wrote: post #464
xlii wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU fuzzing code != fuzzing results. Through skimming it seems that integration tests were using fuzzing, but I would call it fuzzing the code itself. From "product" perspective there's no difference, but in program-compiler perspective (and e.g. raising bugs about compiler), Fuzilli isn't fuzzing. Per Wikipedia > (then...) The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, failing built-in code assertio…

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to draw here. The very specific claim[0] in the Bun blog post that Kelley is calling a fabrication was: > We fuzz Bun's runtime APIs 24/7 using Fuzzilli, the JavaScript engine fuzzer used by V8 & JavaScriptCore It does not look to be a fabrication, and is very explicit just about what they meant by fuzzing. [0] I mean, that sentence doesn't actually match Kelley's par…

The conversation amounts to “You should fuzz your code” “we’re already fuzzing the big external dependency, using their own fuzzing setup that they already use upstream”.

It’s not nothing, but clearly not what Andrew meant.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#480

Post by vitorfblima »

fourseventy wrote: post #282
vitorfblima wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People who love me have told me many times that I'm "shitty" at something. Guess it dependes where you're coming from.
Post reply on HN