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

591–600 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#591

Post by charrondev »

tialaramex wrote: post #123
cyber1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use Rust the way it was designed to be used, rather than relying on countless "unsafe" blocks, you need to redesign the entire codebase architecture to make it compatible with the borrow checker rules.

All that unsafe does in these cases is enable the "unsafe super-powers" which the compiler can't check, thus shifting the responsibility onto the author. But for example if you've got some code which doesn't borrow check, and you just sprinkle unsafe keywords on it, now you've got code which still doesn't borrow check and diagnostics telling that this unsafe keyword was futile and you should remove that. I haven't re…

It seems they’ve already done analysis over what unsafe usage they can get rid of after the port.

https://bun.com/bun-unsafe-audit

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#592

Post by ModernMech »

27183 wrote: post #589
Shorn wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could make a similar point by saying something like "I don't like the message he's sending so I won't participate" Sooo.... "be more professional in your writing"? Why does this person owe you "professional writing" on their personal comment?

> Sooo.... "be more professional in your writing"? No, just more precise. It seems absurd to brand an entire community as "assholes" based on some disagreement with a blog post by one member. I suspect great GP didn't mean it that way, but it would help to have some clarification.

To be precise, they said “the kind of contributors you attract with this kind of writing are just assholes” not “the community is only assholes” and also not “anyone who associates with him is an asshole". You’re strawmanning.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#593

Post by ovao »

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…

Note that Andrew's since removed the “outright fabrication” bit from his post. No indication of the edit itself though, which is a choice.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#594

Post by audunw »

karahime wrote: post #565
hoppp wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's an attack, more like a goodbye. Andrew is happy bun is not zig anymore because it was not up to the level they would expect from a project that represents them.

Isn't this what makes it so strange, though? You didn't see K&R publish "so-and-so writes bad C", or Stroustrup decrying the Boost maintainers as hacks. Linus used to do this sort of thing, but mostly to things that directly affected the kernel, and even that eventually led to changed behavior and a code of conduct. The post disclaims the ambassador relationship, but treats Bun as having all of the responsibility of…

> You didn't see K&R publish "so-and-so writes bad C", or Stroustrup decrying the Boost maintainers as hacks.

The world is completely different now. The VC fuelled culture was not as intense and LLMs certainly didn’t exist at all. Andrew calls out these factors explicitly.

> He can't have both "It's their fault because their code was slop" and "it's not my business".

Huh? But it was his business when they had a relationship. Seems he was trying his best to work with them while they were getting funding and Bun was interested in them. That’s the nice thing to do no? Even if you don’t like the partner.

Imagine if the Zig foundation broke the relationship from their side, that would have been much worse.

I don’t think Andrew was trying to say it wasn’t his business in that way. But in the end he couldn’t control what Bun did or didn’t do, and now it’s not his business in any way.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#595

Post by audunw »

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 didn’t read the beginner energy comment as faux positive at all. In fact Andrew has commented about his own beginner energy just recently and shared some embarrassing forum post he made as a teenager.

Stinky manager.. I could see, but even if his wording was more polite he’d still be criticised just as much, people would just say the personal criticism is “thinly veiled”.

We could argue a lot about how he should have worded himself, but in the end he wanted to (and had all right) to talk about how Jarreds coding and management style affected their professional relationship. According to commenters here on hacker news it seems like he simply is not allowed to talk about that. Even if he goes as far as possible in making it explicit that it’s not personal.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#596

Post by johnfn »

conartist6 wrote: post #387
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?

Sure, but getting a bad perf review then, is that necessarily a personal attack? Andrew and Jarred and I are all peers in this situation. You get reviews from your peers.

No one says "You are a bad employee" in a perf review because it would be a personal attack. They say things like "when you did X it had Y outcome" because that's a fact, not a personal attack.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#599

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

tptacek wrote: post #463
lins1909 wrote: post #125

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.

The points in the article aren't great. It opens up personal and stays personal. As people in this thread have pointed out, several of the falsifiable bits turn out to be false. The big thing though is, you get to the end of it and have to ask: why did this need to be written at all? "It's almost like the marketing department of a trillion dollar company has a lot of money riding on this article." He does get that An…

Unless you're implying that Anthropic is actually threatened by Zig here (???) and perhaps even is working to sabotage it, I could not think of a worse meme to reference. I honestly find your comment confusing.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#600

Post by rrvsh »

roetlich wrote: post #436
miyoji wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

prepending argumentum is literally just expanding the informal name for the fallacy to the full name of "an argument to the person", easily verifiable with one search query. unless you are saying that you were 1. originally just making your own contraction from argumentum ad hominem, 2. normally use latin in online forum comments, 3. often use ad hominem in your own speech to mean a different thing from the common parlance, i think this is an Obvious Fabrication (!!!)
Post reply on HN