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

571–580 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#571

Post by alwaysbeconsing »

conartist6 wrote: post #220
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…

It's not just in the past, and my anger isn't just about what was taken, but the community-destroying use it is being put to: Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime, it's to sell the idea that coding is dead. When he made it his job to sell that narrative, he declared war on me. It should not surprise him or anyone else that I am going to take the war right back to his doorstep.

> Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime

Most likely too late for edit, but Jarred is who work for Anthropic, not Andrew.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#572

Post by stock_toaster »

lerno wrote: post #542
orangeisthe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the problem in moving to codeberg?

One funny thing is that if you go on codeberg and want to submit a PR to Zig, you can't. Because Zig's too big for Codeberg, and you're over your free quota, so you can't push your update to your fork. Yes there are ways around it if you have patience, but what the heck!!

> Yes there are ways around it if you have patience, but what the heck!!

https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#573

Post by kzrdude »

laurels-marts wrote: post #471
mchaver wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well exactly, "Zig + someone using AI" can never beat Zig + someone who cares. A developer that cares about the project comes first, no amount of AI can change that. AI could be a good tool for a developer though.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#574

Post by mattstir »

krater23 wrote: post #319
taneq wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m reminded of the hierarchy of controls in machine safety. If you can’t eliminate the hazard, or substitute a less hazardous thing, then engineering out the hazard (like Rust did) is preferable to a procedural control (“git gud at engineering”).

C/C++ with static code analysis is not worse than Rust. But most Rust developers are beginners during there are many C/C++ developers with 20+ years knowledge. So whats exactly is the point in using Rust?

The number of critical CVEs every year related to memory safety seems to point to the contrary. The amount of "just one more static analysizer and we'll never have any bugs!" in the C++ community is honestly disturbing, alongside the obvious elitism and absurdity of statements like 20 years of knowledge == no bugs ever.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#575

Post by lerno »

stock_toaster wrote: post #572
lerno wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One funny thing is that if you go on codeberg and want to submit a PR to Zig, you can't. Because Zig's too big for Codeberg, and you're over your free quota, so you can't push your update to your fork. Yes there are ways around it if you have patience, but what the heck!!

> Yes there are ways around it if you have patience, but what the heck!! https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/

Yep

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#576

Post by haberman »

> There's a dichotomy being presented here where you have to either choose a "style guide" or a programming language feature in order to avoid bugs. The sleight of hand misdirects the reader away from the main way bugs are eliminated: by dedicating engineering resources to it. You're not giving TigerBeetle nearly enough credit. Quite simply they put in the time to find and eliminate the bugs, they make an effort to maintain a healthy relationship with ZSF, and Bun did not do that.

This is not a compelling sales pitch. The point of using a memory-safe language is not needing to put in extra work to avoid use-after-free or out-of-bounds memory access.

It would have been more reassuring to hear that Zig has its own memory safety story that should also be able to prevent most of the same bugs. But instead the answer is "work harder for the same result."

When Zig was first created, Rust looked genuinely harder to use because the borrow checker is so demanding and its errors sometimes so hard to reason about and fix. It made Zig look much simpler and easier by comparison. But now, LLMs are very good at writing Rust. I've been writing Rust using LLMs for weeks and haven't thought about the borrow checker once.

AI made Rust tractable without heroic effort, and in doing so eroded one of Zig's major advantages.

The point about compile times is taken though. Rust is definitely slow to compile, easier to believe it's slower than Zig.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#577

Post by famouswaffles »

embedding-shape wrote: post #341
Jarred wrote: post #274

I have learned so much reading Andrew’s code and as I said in the original post: Bun would never have happened without Zig. > The post claims they were fuzzing their Zig code, while during our calls the whole Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything. This appears to be an outright fabrication. Fuzzilli integration: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/24826 Merged PRs fixing issues Fuzzilli found in Bun’s…

[flagged]

The blog is not worth a reply. It's just a butthurt, petulant rant full of personal attacks.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#578

Post by tangenter »

I don’t even understand why write this? So much code gets rewritten. Typescript 7 has just been rewritten from TS to Go, yielding much better performance. They chose Go over Rust because TS codebase looks more like the Go one.

No one is throwing chicken tendies over it. Countless other examples. Big deal

I don’t use Zig and I never will - the gushing fan base that has top-loaded fuzzy feels over technical superiority has made that certain, but this is not even a language to language debate. This is just sour grapes. But it sounds like even the people here now don’t want to use Zig due to how it makes them feel. Oh well.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#579

Post by mattstir »

snickerzoo wrote: post #354

Andrew Kelly be like "You give major beginner energy, you're a bad manager, your code is trash and I was soo happy when you left" and then ends with "this is not personal criticism BTW"

Couldn't even get himself to say "thanks" for receiving $120,000 from the guy by the way, could only manage "that was cool"

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#580

Post by daishi55 »

grahar64 wrote: post #116
daishi55 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just one long ad hominem

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

I think I am using it right. The implication of the whole post is that Jared's technical points about Zig vs Rust aren't valid because he's a bad programmer. The alternative interpretation is that calling Jared a bad programmer is a non-sequitur unrelated to the argument and is included purely out of spite.

Take your pick I guess, but the way I meant it I was indeed using the term correctly.

Post reply on HN