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

901–910 of 920 posts

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#901

Post by complianceowll »

solid_fuel wrote: post #468
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…

> It largely works and it's a massive business success. You can make anything work when you have enough money to buy and radically change the entire runtime you’re relying on. One must suspect that if they did not have insane amounts of money to burn, they could have tried other approaches to fixing the problems. Maybe engineering, perhaps.

I disagree, Solid Fuel.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#902

Post by dkersten »

zombot wrote: post #885
dkersten wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it lets you constrain the parts that the compiler can’t check and has to trust you on. The alternative is either a langue that can’t do necessary things, or a language that can’t check what could be checked. With unsafe, you’re telling the compiler “I’ve taken extra care to make sure that what I’m doing is safe and doesn’t break your rules” and the compiler can go ahead and assume that you don’t, in fact, bre…

Yes, when a human does it. With an LLM, the "trust me, I took extra care" is extremely doubtful. If LLMs could do that, they might as well use unsafe languages.

Oh, absolutely.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#904

Post by jstimpfle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #894
jstimpfle wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

I've argued elsewhere some things that are wrong with RAII and C++ objects in general. You claimed there were problems many times for sure, I don't think you came up with any evidence of those problems.

You keep "asking" for evidence but the only evidence presented by yourself is that you have merely surface-level understanding of the subject matter, and are looking for arguments, not insight and critical examination.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#905

Post by solid_fuel »

complianceowll wrote: post #901
solid_fuel wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It largely works and it's a massive business success. You can make anything work when you have enough money to buy and radically change the entire runtime you’re relying on. One must suspect that if they did not have insane amounts of money to burn, they could have tried other approaches to fixing the problems. Maybe engineering, perhaps.

I disagree, Solid Fuel.

Nobody cares what a bot account thinks.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#907

Post by vips7L »

Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #496
vips7L wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the segfaults are new that implies it’s from the LLM no?

Who said they're new? Also, you can encounter new segfaults in a codebase just by executing code paths you haven't seen before.

You know they’re new.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#908

Post by mexicocitinluez »

antonvs wrote: post #895
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This saying has been abused 10 ways til Sunday. "I'm using technology I know that will get us there" is not the same as treating every problem as a nail. It's making a practical choice that probably also had time constraints and other factors we don't know.

> "I'm using technology I know that will get us there" is not the same as treating every problem as a nail. Hammering in a screw is using technology that the hammer-wielder knows will get there. You’ve just rephrased the statement. What you seem to be saying is that in some cases, the hammer may be the appropriate tool. No-one disputes that.

How do you know it wasn't the appropriate technology?

My point is that the idiom has now come to mean "I disagree with your tech choices".

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#909

Post by OJFord »

NuclearPM wrote: post #903
OJFord wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely obvious what they meant, even if it/or wasn't a common phone autocorrect typo.

Did you find the other ones?

The other one - singular - is a superfluous 'we'. It's perfectly clear.

Re: Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

#910

Post by CyberDildonics »

jstimpfle wrote: post #904
CyberDildonics wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've argued elsewhere some things that are wrong with RAII and C++ objects in general. You claimed there were problems many times for sure, I don't think you came up with any evidence of those problems.

You keep "asking" for evidence but the only evidence presented by yourself is that you have merely surface-level understanding of the subject matter, and are looking for arguments, not insight and critical examination.

It's your claim that destructors are harmful so the burden of proof is on you.

People use them because by default values have scope based lifetimes and destructors unify the handling of stack based values which require no explicit cleanup with data structures that heap allocate, which require no explicit cleanup once the destructor is implemented.

This is the opposite of C where even though the resource cleanup needs to happen on scope end, it is not automatic, and so becomes a source of bugs. This is exaggerated when there are multiple returns, gotos, macros and other sources of branching especially for error handling.

This automation also removes boilerplate so there is less management that needs to be done when using data structures.

What was your evidence or explanation?

Post reply on HN