Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
1–10 of 366 posts
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#2There's a book that changed a lot of the way I think about attention and media [0]. The book isn't very good, but it flags something relevant here. There is a huge asymmetry between the reach of a big, flashy announcement (here: bun was re-written in memory-safe rust in a couple weeks), and the relatively small reach of a correction (often just a footnote on an old article, here a GH issue).
This asymmetry is well understood by marketing and PR professionals, and actively exploited.
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#3I speculate the real goal is to have that fixed over time, and then use it as precious training data for Rust capabilities
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#4That kind of error was expected. I don't see it as an issue against the rewrite. They kept the stable versions on Zig in case ppl needs stability. Eventually, the errors will get fixed.
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#5UB = undefined behaviour, for anyone else who was puzzled.
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#6Maybe they want a quick switchover and the UB is replicating existing problems so it is net neutral for the codebase (but positive future coz developers can do future work on rust without synchronizing two codebase? ).
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#7I thought Rust treated undefined behaviour as a compiler bug? Does anyone know what's actually happening here?
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#8There's a book that changed a lot of the way I think about attention and media [0]. The book isn't very good, but it flags something relevant here. There is a huge asymmetry between the reach of a big, flashy announcement (here: bun was re-written in memory-safe rust in a couple weeks), and the relatively small reach of a correction (often just a footnote on an old article, here a GH issue). This asymmetry is well un…
Not just marketing and PR, the mainstream media knows that pushing out BS and then retracting it later can have lasting effects because people will remember the original article / headline, and never see the correction.
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#9This had to happen, for many reasons:
- Its a throw thing at the wall and see what sticks situation
- LLMs will improve*
- Using LLMs in an agentic way will improve (git worktrees, sliced PRs, spec driven steps)
So what happened here is a mess, but you gotta break a few eggs to make a souffle.
It's a learning step and I am glad it happened, there will be so many things to debrief from this.
I don't use Bun or Rust but fair play to them having a punt.
I have been working with Claude code to spec out and bring back to life a Spring Boot starter library for Apache Solr search
https://github.com/tomaytotomato/spring-data-solr-lazarus
There were a few points I had to steer it but the result has been a good implementation.
Re: Bun Rust rewrite: "codebase fails basic miri checks, allows for UB in safe rust"
#10Dumbest point ever.
There is no value for this issue.
I don't agree with the way they did the rewrite, but they did the rewrite, and this post contributes nothing, beside making the author seem childish.
If it had any real contribution I would have waved it off, but it really doesn't.
This tribalism and "I'm better than you"-ism and the same reason everybody hated the stack overflow community, and the rust community as well.