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

431–440 of 920 posts

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#431

Post by vintagedave »

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 asked this in a thread with a CC author a few months ago (I felt — and hope — very politely, with similar background.) No reply. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46716974

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#432

Post by jstimpfle »

hugmynutus wrote: post #425
awesan wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig (like C) is simply not a good language to use if you're going to do many small allocations with uncorrelated lifetimes. To write robust Zig (or C) code, you must manage lifetimes yourself, for example by grouping allocations on an arena or by having fixed buffers of "things". You can just do that, and then Zig is really no less robust than Rust. But if you want to do "managed language" style allocation patterns (…

This reads like cope because you're re-inventing RAII from first principles. I cannot take this seriously as tutorials on robust Zig Allocation Pools will store a deinit method for each item within the pool, so when the pool deinits, all internal objects can be deinit'd. That is just RAII & dtors from first principles, except with extra overhead of manually storing fat pointers yourself (and the bugs that come with t…

I've argued elsewhere some things that are wrong with RAII and C++ objects in general.

Here I would just like to mention that if you have to rely on "de-virtualization" passes, you're in a miserable situation architecturally. If you have code where the overhead of virtual function calls might be too much to pay, don't do virtual functions then. End of story.

To deconstruct a pool of objects, I don't see what should ever be wrong with a function pointer. The overhead of loading the function pointer will get divided by the number of objects being deconstructed. Care to explain what's the issue here?

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#433

Post by realusername »

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.

I'd argue these tech companies got popular because they have good models, nothing else.

Even OpenAI took two years to fix basic chat scrolling.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#435

Post by benrutter »

ljm wrote: post #252
senderista wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you implicating ghostty? Have you compared its CPU usage to any other terminal?

Of course I have. If I see ghostty constantly consuming the most energy and helping reduce my battery life to barely 2 or 3 hours, the first thing I'm going to do is switch terminal to see if I can improve that situation. The built in terminal and WezTerm have been fine and I've had much more reasonable battery life since. This does not even speak to it pegging my CPU and keeping the fans running on full blast even w…

If you're looking for a non-ghostty recommendation (not that I have anything against ghostty) I use alacritty + zellij and it works fantastic. It doesn't seem to impact battery, I certainly get good battery usage on both my work and home laptops.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#436

Post by [deleted] »

weakfish wrote: post #406
Kiro wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointless nitpicking that completely missed my point. Software developers are not the hardest to replace, so your presumption that everything else should be easier is wrong.

Next time, try being polite, it’ll make me way more inclined to engage with you. If I missed your point it was unintentional. Instead of being rude, try gentle clarification. But now I’ve lost interest. Have a good day!

[deleted]

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#437

Post by geraneum »

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.

The engineer is suggesting that it could be done cheaper and maybe with better outcome. Ironically, this is a classic business case.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#438

Post by jen20 »

afavour wrote: post #16
junon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does changing to Rust kill the project? I don't understand the point here.

The objection isn’t to the language. It’s to Claude using a version of Bun that is not available to us. We don’t know what’s actually in it.

That is also true of the rest of their codebase, no?

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#439

Post by losvedir »

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…

This reply makes no sense in this context, though. Sure, it exploded in popularity based on whatever random tech choices were made. But now, when apparently they're deciding there's a problem there, why unleash $150k of tokens to rewrite a JS runtime wrapper from Zig to a million lines of rust, rather than simply rewrite Claude Code itself to rust?

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#440

Post by kccqzy »

rafaelmn wrote: post #430
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 recently saw a blog post [1] about a famous Haskel shop moving away from Haskell to Python because the iteration speed with LLMs was just that much better. There is so much React in training data, TS compile times are minimal compared to Rust and similar. I suspect user facing/fast moving code (UX layer) will move to dynamic systems with fast iteration times. Infra layer will move towards safe systems level environ…

That blog post doesn’t make sense to me at all. The author is going from full modern Haskell (since he mentioned Servant and Beam, you could tell almost every file uses dozens of GHC extensions beyond what Haskell2010 gives you) to Python with dynamic types. He could instead rewrite the Haskell to use less modern type system features and get so much faster compilation speed.

Also GHC has an interpreter. It powers the REPL. No need to compile everything if you’re just experimenting. I do find that in the Haskell world the REPL is criminally underused compared to Python.

And the rest of your comment doesn’t make sense; this shop is rewriting their infra (not UI) from Haskell to Python.

Post reply on HN