[dead]
Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
11–20 of 57 posts
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#12Could you imagine if Postgres decided to yolo a port (even if unreleased) to rust? Why port the whole thing like this? Why not do it piecemeal and get each piece to prod?
Look no further than their owner for the reason, unless it is merely a coincidence this only happened after a change in ownership…
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#13right at the very top: > Bun · Rust codebase audit · May 21, 2026 · AI generated nice of them to be up-front about it, I guess. the port is AI slop, littered with 13k unsafe blocks. and this blog post is more AI slop, claiming to present a "plan" for how to reduce that number. why should anyone trust anything they output? all they're trying to do is cover up their slop with more slop. if you're cleaning your house, a…
I trust them because of their reputation. I have been a bun user before v1.0.0 and I experienced some shortcomings, bugs, memory leaks and things of that nature. But all of them were eventually patched, and it has become my go to runtime for at least 2 years now. I trust their judgement to do the right thing. I don’t understand the overreaction since this is a parallel development. If it turns out to be better than m…
> I trust them because of their reputation.
Anthropic has a serious savior complex (when it is actually about total control) and believe that you should not run your own models locally and they do not care about you and I.
This Bun Zig to Rust rewrite is great content for them and for their IPO prospectus, but it isn't performative in the sense that it is fake. (It is real with terrible code.)
What this really means is that it gives the green light to managers and everyone else to use Claude to do massive rewrites; even when it produces hundreds of thousands of lines of slop.
Unless comprehension debt is what you want.
You do not have the same amount of token-spend as the Bun team does.
> I trust their judgement to do the right thing.
They will do the "right thing" for their investors (and soon Wall Street).
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#14The current level of insanity with AI is off the charts. Porting to a safe language without the safety features.
Porting is usually a messy process. Do you know it's less safe than the Zig version? Maybe it's just highlighting where the problems already existed. Regardless, wild hyperbole are not constructive.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#15Remember kids, unsafe is not undefined behaviour. It just means you need to prove via unchecked English statements that your code is not UB.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#16Also, was this done with Mythos or Opus 4.7?
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#17Could you imagine if Postgres decided to yolo a port (even if unreleased) to rust? Why port the whole thing like this? Why not do it piecemeal and get each piece to prod? Look no further than their owner for the reason, unless it is merely a coincidence this only happened after a change in ownership…
[deleted]
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#18Bun is(was?) a lot about performance. How does it compare to zig?
Rust and Zig both use the same optimizing compiler (LLVM) so assuming the vibe coded port didn't introduce performance pitfalls and kept the algorithms the same, the end result should be in the single digit performance difference with the original.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#19Assertions without context, charts about other charts, numbers (so many numbers) without data. An audit with no auditor. Pure infoslop. What a time to be alive.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#20Also, was this done with Mythos or Opus 4.7?
Does that matter?