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

Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

tipiirai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#81

Post by preg_match »

ofjcihen wrote: post #71
potsandpans wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People _really_ don't want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks successfully exploring the space.

Watch this: People _really_ want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks questioning the space.

Both of these are true. I recall Anthropic's lofty claims about their C compiler. It just did not work, and they claimed all of this and that. It was clear they were driven to believe that agents alone could write a C compiler, and refused to believe they couldn't. Not that I think that AI couldn't write a C compiler. It definitely can... with a human at the helm and sufficient time.

But, for people who don't like AI, they also refuse to believe that AI could be good at any particular workflow. Which is just obviously not true, there are workflows that AI is really good at. Language re-writes are one of them. They're almost mechanical in nature and trivial to check via tests. So, the perfect use-case for an LLM.

I'm not saying the Bun re-write is any good, but the underlying concept is sound. If ever there was a tool to do a language re-write, it would be a high quality LLM.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#83

Post by rtpg »

3 months since the last stable release feels ... alright. The constant promises for a new stable release feels a bit like a self-own.

Having said that I would have a bit more confidence in things if release just got back to a normal pace.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#84

Post by AntonOfTheWoods »

Lots of people are apparently happily using the canary version in prod. Anthropic has been using it for ages now, as has Prisma.

Why not release 1.4 (or 2.0 or whatever) then? It won't get picked up by lots of tooling and won't get allowed in many "no pre-release in prod" shops until then. It had plenty of issues before (many thousands of open issues) so a few thousand more is hardly a big deal...

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#85

Post by tuananh »

AntonOfTheWoods wrote: post #84

Lots of people are apparently happily using the canary version in prod. Anthropic has been using it for ages now, as has Prisma. Why not release 1.4 (or 2.0 or whatever) then? It won't get picked up by lots of tooling and won't get allowed in many "no pre-release in prod" shops until then. It had plenty of issues before (many thousands of open issues) so a few thousand more is hardly a big deal...

bit off topic: do lots of people use Prisma Compute? I never heard it in a conversation, in my bubble

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#86

Post by jibal »

AntonOfTheWoods wrote: post #84

Lots of people are apparently happily using the canary version in prod. Anthropic has been using it for ages now, as has Prisma. Why not release 1.4 (or 2.0 or whatever) then? It won't get picked up by lots of tooling and won't get allowed in many "no pre-release in prod" shops until then. It had plenty of issues before (many thousands of open issues) so a few thousand more is hardly a big deal...

TFA shows that they are working on releasing it.

If you actually want an answer to your question, ask Jarred ... you won't get it here.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#87

Post by jibal »

stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote: post #35
jemiluv8 wrote: post #16

Yet another clickbait making outrageous assertions. Fwiw I don’t think anyone’s reputation is on the line and so far, you’ve offered only anecdotal evidence at best. Things like this should be backed by stats and community surveys and a whole lot more. I didn’t see anything about number of downloads or any of the usual metrics used to judge software these days Your whole scientific endeavor in this seemed to thrive o…

The article is about the upcoming 1.4 release. The article lists various promised release dates, are they incorrect?

What "promises"? There were no promises, just some optimistic informal tweets.

Sheesh.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#88

Post by bmitc »

potsandpans wrote: post #65
joshuat wrote: post #11

This reads as another weirdly personal attack against Jarred for slighting a technology stack the author prefers, citing the even weirder personal attack against Jarred written by Andrew Kelley as the sole source to justify their "biggest worry", code quality. Idk why people have become so invested in this.

People _really_ don't want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks successfully exploring the space.

It isn't LLMs in general, from what I can tell. It was how this port was done and communicated.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#89

Post by hdjrudni »

skydhash wrote: post #67
skeledrew wrote: post #28

I'm still waiting for someone to bring forth some reproducible stats and state something along the lines of "I did a comparison of Bun 1.3 vs 1.4, and found these user-affecting issues in the latter which are not in the former".

Is it a paid job?

Paid to make such a post? No, but Bun has real users. If there are real issues in 1.4, surely someone will come out.

Here... I'll go first. `bun repl` in 1.4-canary has some rendering issues where characters get overwritten that I had previously not observed in 1.3.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#90

Post by hdjrudni »

dafelst wrote: post #70
potsandpans wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People _really_ don't want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks successfully exploring the space.

It is yet to be determined whether or not the bun rewrite is a success, though.

Right. So let's hold our horses and wait for the release before disparaging anyone.

I do have to agree with the author about Jarred's false claims about release dates though. Really not sure why he keeps doing that.

Post reply on HN