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

Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

ziggit.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#51

Post by Shatnerz »

sevenzero wrote: post #48
Skywalker13 wrote: post #37

I don't understand why the git history has been pruned in this fork. According to the first commit in this fork: > Squashed as a single orphan commit — the original oven-sh/bun history isn't relevant to this stripped fork and its shallow clone doesn't push cleanly to a fresh remote. IMHO it's always a bad decision to do that. Here, all commit authors are lost. The original history is always relevant.

How is the history relevant? Honest question. 5 years in the field I never had a reason to check out the git history of any project I ever worked on.

Checking git history is one of the first things I do when I find unfamiliar code or when I'm debugging something. Git history contains a lot of context that helps speed up the rest of the process

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#52

Post by afavour »

sevenzero wrote: post #50
cpuguy83 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bug is uncovered. Where was it first introduced? Why was the code changed? What did it do before the bug was introduced?

Why would that matter if a bug is uncovered? If you know there's a bug just fix it? Like what use does the bugs history have?

Because there will be a reason why the code was changed that introduced the bug. If you fix the bug you might inadvertently break a different piece of functionality.

A git commit gives you the reason for the change and the context of what other files were changed at the same time. I’ve found that invaluable.

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#53

Post by StilesCrisis »

sevenzero wrote: post #50
cpuguy83 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bug is uncovered. Where was it first introduced? Why was the code changed? What did it do before the bug was introduced?

Why would that matter if a bug is uncovered? If you know there's a bug just fix it? Like what use does the bugs history have?

You can see what the code looked like before the bug was added, and in many cases, just change it back to how it used to be?

The most obvious use case for history is "roll back this entire CL, it's broken".

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#54

Post by virajk_31 »

naiveter wrote: post #42
virajk_31 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic tried hard to port using their LLMs but their models were not trained on enough zig corpus hence failed and they blamed it on Zig's principles

Do you have a source for that?

Why would Anthropic ever admit this?

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#55

Post by virajk_31 »

Zambyte wrote: post #41
virajk_31 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic tried hard to port using their LLMs but their models were not trained on enough zig corpus hence failed and they blamed it on Zig's principles

Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966569 What failed?

Please re-read my comment, I didn't mention anything about Rust. (IK they later switched to Rust. A year ago no LLMs were good at rust, similar to zig today, however its different story now)

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#57

Post by benrutter »

sevenzero wrote: post #48
Skywalker13 wrote: post #37

I don't understand why the git history has been pruned in this fork. According to the first commit in this fork: > Squashed as a single orphan commit — the original oven-sh/bun history isn't relevant to this stripped fork and its shallow clone doesn't push cleanly to a fresh remote. IMHO it's always a bad decision to do that. Here, all commit authors are lost. The original history is always relevant.

How is the history relevant? Honest question. 5 years in the field I never had a reason to check out the git history of any project I ever worked on.

Simple but pretty common use case: If you're ever looking at some pre-existing code and thinking "I don't really get why it's written like this?", you can get a lot out of looking through the git blame/history.

Often "weird design" is there for historic reasons around stuff like backwards compatibility. If your project has a well managed commit log, you can find the notes of whoever implemented it, possibly even with their motivation for doing so.

At the very least, you can find out who wrote that code and ask them about it.

There's a tonne of data in git histories - this article was shared a few months back and is an awesome example of some things you can do with git history: https://piechowski.io/post/git-commands-before-reading-code/

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#58

Post by nfbdhdfbf »

Zambyte wrote: post #41
virajk_31 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic tried hard to port using their LLMs but their models were not trained on enough zig corpus hence failed and they blamed it on Zig's principles

Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966569 What failed?

… failed to maintain it in Zig due to the LLM issues. You misread

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#59

Post by sevenzero »

afavour wrote: post #52
sevenzero wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that matter if a bug is uncovered? If you know there's a bug just fix it? Like what use does the bugs history have?

Because there will be a reason why the code was changed that introduced the bug. If you fix the bug you might inadvertently break a different piece of functionality. A git commit gives you the reason for the change and the context of what other files were changed at the same time. I’ve found that invaluable.

Guess I must be doing something wrong to never have encountered this issue in my 5 years.

Re: Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

#60

Post by owaislone »

sevenzero wrote: post #48
Skywalker13 wrote: post #37

I don't understand why the git history has been pruned in this fork. According to the first commit in this fork: > Squashed as a single orphan commit — the original oven-sh/bun history isn't relevant to this stripped fork and its shallow clone doesn't push cleanly to a fresh remote. IMHO it's always a bad decision to do that. Here, all commit authors are lost. The original history is always relevant.

How is the history relevant? Honest question. 5 years in the field I never had a reason to check out the git history of any project I ever worked on.

Enables the best git command ever: git bisect
Post reply on HN