Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 920 posts

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#291

Post by simonw »

rvz wrote: post #281
simonw wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"only covering AI" - don't miss my wildlife photography! https://simonwillison.net/elsewhere/sighting/ (Unless photos of actual pelicans count as "AI" content now.) I just shipped this filter UI so you can see my other non-AI-tagged content in one place: https://simonwillison.net/search/?exclude.tag=ai

> "only covering AI" - don't miss my wildlife photography! The "ai" tagged posts (2,100+) significantly outnumber "sighting" posts by orders of magnitude. Even searching HN, this post is the very first mention of it. Perhaps that is why everyone here (except you) overlooks that or why we don't see much more of those sightings posts here either.

Yeah, wildlife photography is a new hobby - it used to be every few months, now it's several times a week.

I would be very surprised if one of my sightings posts made it to Hacker News. Maybe if I manage to snap a photo of an actual pelican perched on a bicycle some time.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#292

Post by LambdaComplex »

PsylentKnight wrote: post #161
codethief wrote: post #103

Incidentally, Claude Code has been very buggy for me lately (much more so than before). Lots of TUI rendering issues causing, e.g., the conversation history to be garbled etc.

Every time I resize my window now, the output is completely garbled. I often have to ask it to repeat itself just so I can see what it just said. This isn’t a new thing, but it feels like it’s gotten worse. This is on Windows

Does exiting following by resuming the session fix it?

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#293

Post by skydhash »

K0nserv wrote: post #235
bitwize wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig is a DOA language for other reasons though. The reason why Rust enthusiasts act so morally superior is because they are: > Rob Pike, an unsafe guy, may insist that a small language and garbage collection are enough. But the typesafe visionary Grzegorz Wielbodłąński understands the deeper truth: every invalid state permitted by a compiler is a tiny act of civilizational sabotage. https://x.com/typememetics/status/…

> There is no sense pretending anymore that languages with as many gotchas as C and Zig are "simple". Quite simply, they are not. The complexities lie in what's left unspoken, unaddressed, and of course undefined; failure to comprehend these completely can be catastrophic. This is where I’ve arrived too. After nearly 20 years of programming I feel done with leaving foot guns lying around. Languages that are full of t…

There are many things in life that are "fine" only when you take extreme care (knives, cars, industrial machinery,...). The thing is something like C has many usages and you can't just say "use Rust" and be done with it. Using Rust is not cost-free.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#294

Post by enraged_camel »

tripleee wrote: post #256
switz wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It largely works and it's a massive business success. This is the classic engineer asking the 'why this technology?' to what amounts to a business question. They chose it early on, it works, and it makes obscene amounts of revenue. End of story. That doesn't mean it was the "greatest" choice, or has a perfect technical architecture. Rewrites are never easy, even the bun rewrite. But a non-UI developer tool with a rig…

They succeeded in spite of their tech choices. Their model outshone it, which is an extremely rare thing to happen and not something they could've counted on. In any other timeline they could've/would've been hurt by their choices. It's like "why did you go all in on buying scamcoin 3.0 as your investment strategy?" -- "I 5xed my money! End of story! It was fine!"

>> They succeeded in spite of their tech choices.

It is rarely the case that technology choice is the make-or-break when it comes to whether a product is successful and achieves widespread adoption. Some choices are less ideal than others, but at the end of the day if you manage to make something that people want, the rest won't matter much.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#295

Post by coldtea »

switz wrote: post #236
weakfish wrote: post #212

Maybe I’m taking crazy pills, but I’m still stuck on “why the hell does a TUI need to run in terminal React by way of JavaScript” The fact that Anthropic felt the need to buy a runtime so they could make their TUI better speaks more to the quality of engineering than anything else IMO. If rewrites are so easy, why not rewrite CC in a native language? Would’ve been a hell of a lot cheaper.

It largely works and it's a massive business success. This is the classic engineer asking the 'why this technology?' to what amounts to a business question. They chose it early on, it works, and it makes obscene amounts of revenue. End of story. That doesn't mean it was the "greatest" choice, or has a perfect technical architecture. Rewrites are never easy, even the bun rewrite. But a non-UI developer tool with a rig…

>It largely works and it's a massive business success. This is the classic engineer asking the 'why this technology?' to what amounts to a business question.

Your counter argument would be valid for a 2000 or a 2020 business decision about some tech stack.

But the whole point of their product is that it supposedly nullifies such "business" concerns around the use of technology, by making it cheap and fast to build whatever you like automatically.

That they wont, or worse, couldn't, speaks against that.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#296

Post by dnautics »

anamexis wrote: post #276
tripleee wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They succeeded in spite of their tech choices. Their model outshone it, which is an extremely rare thing to happen and not something they could've counted on. In any other timeline they could've/would've been hurt by their choices. It's like "why did you go all in on buying scamcoin 3.0 as your investment strategy?" -- "I 5xed my money! End of story! It was fine!"

What do you mean in spite of their tech choices? When have the tech choices ever been an issue in the lifespan of Claude Code? From where I sit, it seems like their tech choices enabled them to create an industry-defining product.

for about half a year claude code had this obnoxious flicker problem. i almost quit and went to codex over it.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#297

Post by dgellow »

delegate wrote: post #280

I'm looking at this situation strictly as 'What's possible today'. If a 1M lines code rewrite from one language to another goes into production in 1 month, that's a very strong signal that the models are now insanely capable. My anxiety before merging a 2K lines PR is greatly reduced after 3 frontier models (Fable, 5.6 and kimi K3) finds no issues in it. Just 6 months ago (Opus 4.6) this was not true, a big PR would…

> Aside from the human drama, the message to all of us is - these things are ready for whatever your imagination can throw at them.

…if you have the compute and capital to run that whole agentic system

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#298

Post by myaccountonhn »

ljm wrote: post #223
weakfish wrote: post #212

Maybe I’m taking crazy pills, but I’m still stuck on “why the hell does a TUI need to run in terminal React by way of JavaScript” The fact that Anthropic felt the need to buy a runtime so they could make their TUI better speaks more to the quality of engineering than anything else IMO. If rewrites are so easy, why not rewrite CC in a native language? Would’ve been a hell of a lot cheaper.

I never knew that running an interactive program in my terminal would absolutely rinse my CPU and battery but that's what Claude, OpenCode and Ghostty have colluded to achieve. Even when the laptop is asleep overnight it's practically melting. I'm sure there was some logical reason for shoehorning web technology into this stack given that we have a good 40 years or so of experience with interactive terminal programs…

Its so wasteful, but that tracks with the modus operandi of AI companies.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#299

Post by jeremyjh »

bwfan123 wrote: post #255
galangalalgol wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticism didn't appear to me to be that the solution didn't work, just that many of the working solutions we are selecting are dangerously overcomplicated due to shortsighted decisionmaking. The benefits of throwing redundant stacks of abstraction atop each other in terms of time to market are questionable, and obviously absent in every other metric.

So, you have a vibe-coded TUI which happens to work, and then, as a workaround you vibe-translate its engine to make it more performant. Where does that leave you ? Basically, fully dependent on AI to fix whatever breaks. Workaround on a workaround is the way I see it, and it aligns with the AI design mentality in general. For a variety of usecases, this might still be a win in terms of overall cost. But, for softwar…

Bun was not ported to Rust for performance reasons and its not clear to me how anyone can think it was. The reason they've given is memory safety.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#300

Post by nozzlegear »

anamexis wrote: post #276
tripleee wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They succeeded in spite of their tech choices. Their model outshone it, which is an extremely rare thing to happen and not something they could've counted on. In any other timeline they could've/would've been hurt by their choices. It's like "why did you go all in on buying scamcoin 3.0 as your investment strategy?" -- "I 5xed my money! End of story! It was fine!"

What do you mean in spite of their tech choices? When have the tech choices ever been an issue in the lifespan of Claude Code? From where I sit, it seems like their tech choices enabled them to create an industry-defining product.

> When have the tech choices ever been an issue in the lifespan of Claude Code?

This is just blatantly ignoring all of the glaring issues Claude Code has had over its lifespan.

Post reply on HN