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

731–740 of 757 posts

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#731

Post by grayhatter »

dom96 wrote: post #727
grayhatter wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to tell someone their code quality is poor, then you better do so with specific things that is poor so that the person you are telling it to can learn and do better. You and I must have had very different interactions with the types of people who happily emit slop. For the people I've met who've suggested slop; they don't care about quality, and it has exclusively been a waste of time trying to explain…

Well, the creator of Bun is certainly someone that deserves professionalism. But even random people you get on GitHub sending you PRs. You shouldn't reject them with "this code is slop". At least say "Cannot accept this. The code quality isn't great" or something to that effect. But the point is: dismissing real people who are doing real work and spending a lot of effort on something with "that's slop" is very unprof…

> Well, the creator of Bun is certainly someone that deserves professionalism.

I disagree. (Funny that, different people with different values have different perspectives on acceptable behavior?)

> You are just coming up with scenarios that don't really apply to what happened in this blog post.

Counterpoint; I'm actually sharing a perspective because I thought it would be interesting or useful to consider different opinions.

We're all just pattern matching; you see one form of indifference as offensive, I see a completely different set of actions as the root cause for the offense.

We all have our own rules for what follows and breaks the implicit social contract we've each invented independently. These rules are allowed to differ. You feel like someone insulting your code is more disrespectful, I feel like someone wasting my time is more disrespectful. If you'd like to assert I'm wrong, I'm equally happy to assert you're an idiot (in case it's not abundantly obvious, I don't think you're an idiot, this is an example of how I don't care about "insults")

> But the point is: dismissing real people who are doing real work and spending a lot of effort on something with "that's slop" is very unprofessional.

I might agree with parts of this, but fundamentally, LLM produced code does not count as real work. No, reviewing it doesn't count, because 1) it's harder to do right 2) no one does it correctly 3) if reviewing actually took more effort than no one would use LLMs.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#732

Post by rowanG077 »

elktown wrote: post #730
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't have any. And after reading all of Jarred's posts and responses you found that he repeatedly thanked Zig and said he respected Andrew but that, after donating over a hundred thousand dollars to their work, his project had different needs than before and needed to change stack? Incredible display of bad faith discussion. You should be ashamed.

[flagged]

Nothing superficial about 120K USD donations. I have personally seen nothing but good vibes coming from Bun to Zig and Andrew. Re-writing is not "throwing under the bus" you make it out to be.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#733

Post by elktown »

rowanG077 wrote: post #732
elktown wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nothing superficial about 120K USD donations. I have personally seen nothing but good vibes coming from Bun to Zig and Andrew. Re-writing is not "throwing under the bus" you make it out to be.

[flagged]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#734

Post by rowanG077 »

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?

There is no C/C++ static analyzer that can guarantee what rust does: full memory safety.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#735

Post by rowanG077 »

elktown wrote: post #733
rowanG077 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing superficial about 120K USD donations. I have personally seen nothing but good vibes coming from Bun to Zig and Andrew. Re-writing is not "throwing under the bus" you make it out to be.

[flagged]

That someone needs to vent is not proof of anything. People get their panties twisted for the tiniest things. I would expect that if Andrew had a real valid reason than it would appear in this post. But it's really nothing but personal attacks with little substance.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#736

Post by metoobruh »

em-bee wrote: post #409
krater23 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this just isn't the kind of professionalism needed for a serious project. Yes, I think you are totally right. I'm sure Linux would never be so big as it is without a maintainer that talks so professional than Linus Torvalds.

linus torvalds was eventually told that his tone was not acceptable and that he needed to learn to tone it down. linux grew despite linus tone, not because of it.

Nah. It was because of it.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#737

Post by metoobruh »

bel8 wrote: post #647
quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #605

People claiming Andrew Kelley's remarks in this thread can't possibly be personal attacks surprise and sadden me. If someone insults your ability to do your job, paints you as an opportunistic sellout, and thanks the stars for your riddance, saying someone shouldn't feel hurt because "we can separate personal from professional lives" says more about your inability to perceive your own hurtfulness than it does of that…

This post obliterated any chance I had to use or condone Zig commercially. If this is how Zig leadership thinks and acts, plus their stance on AI and GitHub, I'm afraid that the language will stay archived as a neat PL research project in my mind. And maybe it's what Andrew wants.

[flagged]

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#738

Post by tuananh »

lacedeconstruct wrote: post #207
themgt wrote: post #26

Zig is getting that Elm, etc vibe. Genius/visionary BFDL who's also personally incapable of leading the project towards healthy long-term viability. Say what you will about Matz or José Valim, I don't think they'd ever write a "and don't let the door hit you on the way out" screed full of personal attacks ("stinky manager", "writing slop", "a total shit show") against a person who led a very prominent project and fin…

I am sorry but andrew is no where near the level of Evan imo

sorry, who's Evan?

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#739

Post by account42 »

em-bee wrote: post #382
embedding-shape wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI did steal open source knowledge It's really sad to see my fellow FOSS enthusiasts adopt this very strange vocabulary from the anti-pirate people. No, no one has stolen anything, the knowledge is still out there. No, you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it. Literally the point for me and others is that what we put out can be used by anyone for anything, that's why…

you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it yes you can if you do not honor the license that the original was released under. that's why we use FOSS licenses in the first place some FOSS licenses are intended to insure that the code remains open even after modification. that's used by anyone for anything under the same license.

And even permissive licenses generally require that you at least credit the original authors.

Re: My thoughts on the Bun Rust rewrite

#740

Post by twoodfin »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #627
tptacek wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draper sabotages Ginsburg because he couldn't possibly care less about Ginsburg and is irritated to be saving his feelings by pitching two different campaigns when he knows he has it in the bag. I know the Mad Men wiki says otherwise, but 51% of Mad Men wikipedians are wrong about this: Draper is being honest in the elevator. Ginsburg's tagline wins Jaguar! (Joan clears an obstacle to them winning it, but they still…

I have no idea what the wiki says but this is a wild take. It's a lie through and through, but Don is so smooth he convinced you in addition to himself. Time for a rewatch I suppose.

Coming to this unexpectedly awesome thread a bit late but…

Take away any questions of ego or rivalry: Don is obsessed with the youth of his era. Over and over again we see him trying to pick the lock of understanding how they see the world, just as his own youth is departing.

He absolutely thinks about Ginsberg—deeply—even if only from an anthropological perspective.

Post reply on HN