291–300 of 412 posts
Writing code is a different thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also would have produced a team of engineers that knows the Rust codebase.
"Knowing the codebase" seems like an antithetical philosophy to LLM driven engineering orgs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CI has always been expensive for Bun including before the acquisition. We build for [macOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Android, Windows] x [ARM64, x64] and then run tests on multiple Linux distros with multiple shards, multiple macOS versions and Windows for each architecture. We recently started cross-compiling all the builds on Linux arm64 and that made it a little faster (I wrote a CLI tool to download the correct macOS head…
How come Bun uses Buildkite instead of self-hosting the CI infra?
I think, we all are phrasing this wrong. Bun was rewritten retooled in Rust by AI with only ensuring integration tests and usage tests succeed. That's similar how to a C program was compiled to binary or Typescript was transpiled to Javascript and run. We didn't make a very big deal of it then, and I think, we should see this operation as a similar higher level source to source translation, which machines have been d…
Rust devs are so obsessed with writing things in Rust that Rust was re-written in Rust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ported UE5 to, idfk, Malbolge and ran Tetris on it and someone would dismiss it as “not impressive”, I would think they lost the plot too!
A human doing it is impressive. A human performing many computations a computer could do would be impressive. I don't get impressed when a computer computes a number. A language machine translating is just... doing what a language machine does? When a language machine starts doing something other than translation, I will be impressed. If computers starting singing without any human intervention, for example, would be…
Really? We had language machines for decades that couldn't do it. One that could was only built in the last 2 years max but that's something you expect from language machines? Lol Okay
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jarred, thank you for working on Bun. Many "vibe coded" :D projects start strong and are later abandoned (like potentially Anthropic C), so I understand why people worry about Bun's future. I hope Bun lasts for many years, like GCC. Bun is fast and great to use.
Anthropic's C compiler was a proof of concept[1], so it makes sense that it was abandoned. [1] What it actually proved is up for debate.
I guess I'm debating, but it seemed clear enough to me? It proved that AI models and their harnesses are to the point where you can give them some work to do and leave them unattended for a long time, and they'll keep doing productive work for quite a while. This was a novel thing, and quite unclear, at the time the experiment was performed.
Obviously, the word "productive" is doing a lot of work there, but in my understanding the intention was nowhere near "commercially viable" or "practically useful", it was more like "not doing stupid shit like writing comments of the form 'This file contains the implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation implementation ...'".
Maybe somewhere in the vicinity of "either passing more tests or generating more valid tests"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is literally “post death” in Latin Yes; I think what I described matches that meaning? Post-death, as in: "it's over," "activity has halted," "no more work being done." Death does not necessarily have a bad/negative connotation. It's just the end of something. This is in contrast to the original comment: "something that went so wrong you had to kill it." Death does not imply something went wrong or that it happened…
> Post-death, as in: "it's over," "activity has halted," "no more work being done” Which makes even less sense as we all know software is never done, unless it truly is dead.