91–100 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are quite a few high profile examples where the fork was successful (egcs comes to mind which eventually became the official gcc, also all the BSD flavours). And even when the fork ultimately isn't successful, it sometimes at least forces the original project to adapt (e.g. ffmpeg vs libav). E.g. "it's difficult to make predicitions, especially about the future" ;) PS: of course for this specific projec…
egcs was almost 30 years ago, fwiw.
But anyway, GCC was already an established and popular compiler at that time.
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.
What makes Bun Bun is all the things that got removed from this project. Node is already powerful enough and well maintained. Why would anyone use this?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in this fork Not a fork, but a new project that takes a subset of the old Bun code to create something new, meant to complement Bun. “Cruller is not intended to replace Bun for development. It is a minimal, specialized runtime for executing production code. In any case, I do not want to throw away such a large codebase that has taken several years to build. It makes more sense to turn it into a convenient embeddabl…
A new project based primarily on existing code is still a fork. Also Ship of Theseus.
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.
> in this fork Not a fork, but a new project that takes a subset of the old Bun code to create something new, meant to complement Bun. “Cruller is not intended to replace Bun for development. It is a minimal, specialized runtime for executing production code. In any case, I do not want to throw away such a large codebase that has taken several years to build. It makes more sense to turn it into a convenient embeddabl…
The git history should have been retained. It's helpful for the files that came over.
There is no good reason to erase all of the history. They should have deleted the files they didn't want to keep in a new commit.