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

491–500 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#491

Post by Ar-Curunir »

27183 wrote: post #371
em-bee wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he doesn't owe it, but his writing reflects on him and the project. personal blog or not, the writing shows his personality, and that in turn affects how comfortable i am using a project led by this person. if this was just one of many zig developers then it would not matter as much, but as this is the founder and leader, his personality has a major impact on the project as whole. especially in how it attracts contri…

Maybe it's just filtering for the right contributors? More isn't always better ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, and the kind of contributors you attract with this kind of writing are just assholes

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#492

Post by jsnell »

xlii wrote: post #472
jsnell wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that Kelley did not argue that what Bun does isn't really fuzzing. He wrote that the post's claim is a fabrication. But that claim is really specific, and to evaluate whether it is true it doesn't matter what Kelley's unstated definition of fuzzing is.

So an argument about definitions doesn't seem super valuable here.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#493

Post by Ar-Curunir »

conartist6 wrote: post #171
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…

"An unprofessional embarrassment" is exactly how I feel about Bun. I don't get mad at people for standing up for their morals, I get mad when they have none. AI is an a-moral tech, and Bun is using it in an a-moral way: for team Bun the ends justify any means. I'm on team Zig!

Ok, then call out those aspects. Don’t call the lead a stinky manager who wrote shitty code.

Criticize the project and methodology, not the person.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#494

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#495

Post by nicce »

ventana wrote: post #222
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…

> this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project I don't immediately see how much the seriousness of the project is related to the language the author chose in their personal blog post. It's similar to saying that Linux could not have become a serious project because of the way Linus communicated in his emails.

> It's similar to saying that Linux could not have become a serious project because of the way Linus communicated in his emails.

Linus being rude was actually contributing for Linux becoming a serious project. Because that changed the quality of the code and the seriousness of the contributions. If you were sloppy or did not do good job, Linus became rude. So there is a correlation, and this is an excellent demonstration how it goes to opposite direction. Whether it was professional or not, it correlated for the quality of the project. For that reason, it is not ad hominem.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#496

Post by Ar-Curunir »

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...

How do these statements read to you:

You’re a shitty programmer!

Vs “your code is bad”.

Who is the subject of these sentences?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#497

Post by Ar-Curunir »

vitorfblima wrote: post #480
fourseventy wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly Kelley was not saying this from a place of love or caring.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#498

Post by soerxpso »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #374
dataflow wrote: post #189

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. I know nothing about the drama here other than what's in the blog post, but these feel more like unnecessarily public personal attacks which don't really reflect well: - a stinky manager. Poor com…

I also know nothing of the drama, but what I picked up from the first blog post was that even with access to near unlimited funds and unreleased god-tier coding llms from a trillion dollar AI corporation it was apparently impossible to fix a backlog of bugs in Zig code but it was possible to fix them by automatically doing a rewrite in rust. I can see why that might feel like an existential attack on Zig even if star…

> I can see why that might feel like an existential attack on Zig even if starts with a bit about how great Zig is.

The original post explicitly praised Zig, and seemed to be arguing more that Zig was a great tool for the initial version of Bun, but that Rust was better for their needs as Bun grew to a larger project with a larger contribution team.

That seems completely in line with what Zig claims its strengths are. Zig's response to "but memory bugs" has basically always been "Zig is not a language for a big tumultuous project that you're going to throw interns at."

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#500

Post by tomjakubowski »

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...

It may be hard to separate the work and non-work personas of Jarred in particular. I watched an interview with Jarred where the interviewer asked what he liked to do for fun, what were his hobbies outside of work, and so on. His answer was that he liked working on Bun, and that's all he did. I felt a bit sad for him about it: even Linus T. has hobbies (like diving) and has raised a family.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that workaholics are bad managers, or that they insist on workaholism in their subordinates. We, generally, don't have access to Andrew's rumornet, we can only go off what Jarred's said publicly.

Post reply on HN