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

671–680 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#671

Post by PKop »

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?

> If I told you to your face

That's not even the extent of it. Saying something in private face to face at least keeps it between 2 people. He posted it publicly for the world to see, so it's a massively bigger "attack".

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#672

Post by grayhatter »

dom96 wrote: post #290
swiftcoder wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, corpo-speak is the original slop. The result of too many comms/legal inputs to a conversation. Professional communication is direct, clear, and ideally courteous (but only to a point).

Calling someone’s code “slop” surely isn’t professional nor courteous.

it is.

If I call your code slop, I'm being professional and courteous.

The truth doesn't have a ethical value. Me calling your code slop might feel disrespectful, but it's less disrespectful than trying to pass slop off for your coworkers (or users) to use and deal with.

Lying to someone, and allowing someone who's supposedly your friend to ship slop is more disrespectful. If I wrote shitty code, and my friend didn't stop me, and I find out later he knew it was shitty code... that would be very hard on our friendship.

Unless you meant it's a lie to call it slop code. A lie would be disrespectful, but then again, we both know you didn't say that because it's not a lie.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#673

Post by mtlynch »

FreakLegion wrote: post #590
jsnell wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Fuzzilli PR was merged on Nov 20. The acquisition was announced on Dec 3. A big holiday was in the middle. The teams no longer interacted after the acquisition, and in prior interactions the Bun team would've been correct in saying they weren't fuzzing. So Jarred isn't wrong, and Andrew also isn't wrong.

Andrew was wrong. He stealth edited his post to hide it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48854921

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#674

Post by deagle50 »

mawadev wrote: post #629
mjr00 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is unprofessional and embarrassing for Zig. It is. It's also why Anthropic and Bun moved off Zig. Zig is effectively a one-man show, and that one man has been making increasingly erratic decisions. It's his project so it's well within his rights, of course. But when you're a ~trillion dollar company you don't want to get hit by a supply chain risk like this. For Anthropic, it's better to nip this in the bud ra…

I think the blog post was cringe, but the part with relieving a burden stuck with me. I don't think its acceptable to have trillion dollar companies or companies at all sit on your neck using your project in a way you don't like and subtly influencing its trajectory just because they want to make money. License back and forth, but it doesn't feel right to me personally. Its like the guy who wrote the stuff that is us…

If he's so relieved that Bun/Anthropic are off Zig, then why trash Jarred? He should say thank you and move on.

What this looks like to me is Jarred sinned by selling to Anthropic (as opposed to setting up a 501c3 or whatever Andrew deems righteous) and now must be discredited.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#675

Post by pixl97 »

mawadev wrote: post #629
mjr00 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is unprofessional and embarrassing for Zig. It is. It's also why Anthropic and Bun moved off Zig. Zig is effectively a one-man show, and that one man has been making increasingly erratic decisions. It's his project so it's well within his rights, of course. But when you're a ~trillion dollar company you don't want to get hit by a supply chain risk like this. For Anthropic, it's better to nip this in the bud ra…

I think the blog post was cringe, but the part with relieving a burden stuck with me. I don't think its acceptable to have trillion dollar companies or companies at all sit on your neck using your project in a way you don't like and subtly influencing its trajectory just because they want to make money. License back and forth, but it doesn't feel right to me personally. Its like the guy who wrote the stuff that is us…

At the end of the day our personal feelings matter very little unless we happen to be the authoritarian dictator or we are the type of personality that gets other people to follow our cause.

In a more just society we setup the rule of law so when you pick a license you have the ability to enforce it without being completely destroyed by a larger entity. When you set your license to 'do whatever you want' then this is causality. You cannot interact with the world and expect it not to affect you, both positive or negative.

What does this mean for the future of the open source world? Not really sure there is a lot up in the air right now. Maybe more 'fuck you' licenses that scare corporations from using your software in the first place. Who knows.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#677

Post by jmstevers »

0x7265616374 wrote: post #570
jmstevers wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No one else cares about someone being discriminatory towards people with autism". Okay bro. Yes the reason I posted that comment was to be performative for a 2018 tech twitter audience. Grow up and have some empathy instead of being antisocial on an internet forum

Nah you're just another ism ist identity sociopath. Only a sociopath would reply like you have.

Yep, I'm the sociopath. Reducing someone to an "ism ist identity sociopath" is definitely not antisocial. Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with identity politics you wouldn't be trying to be mean to people on the internet.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#678

Post by [deleted] »

silver_silver wrote: post #642
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…

All of those commits except the initial integration are from after the acquisition. How do we know this wasn’t done without anyone on the call’s knowledge?

[deleted]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#679

Post by [deleted] »

silver_silver wrote: post #642
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…

All of those commits except the initial integration are from after the acquisition. How do we know this wasn’t done without anyone on the call’s knowledge?

[deleted]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#680

Post by zamadatix »

silver_silver wrote: post #642
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…

All of those commits except the initial integration are from after the acquisition. How do we know this wasn’t done without anyone on the call’s knowledge?

Since there are multiple ways to interpret Andrew's original comment, multiple ways to interpret what his newer edit of it implies, multiple logical reasons each way could have come about, and likely multiple opinions on what the expectations from each side should be... I'm finding myself getting stuck in a loop of trying to understand how/why these considerations are important.

Could you help further explain which interpretations & ways you feel this info is relevant to?

Post reply on HN