Guys, does anyone know why the decision to port Bun from Zig to Rust? Is it to move to a less niche language?
The bun team communicated about it, it’s to reduce the number of memory issues they have to deal with IIRC
Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nobody knows if it is less safe than the Zig version because nobody has ever read the code. Maintainers included
Ironically, suggesting that 13k is ridiculous compared to an unknown (the zig version is available for assessment) is as compelling as any other vibes.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#33Also, was this done with Mythos or Opus 4.7?
Does that matter?
When I see something tagged as "AI generated" (as it does in this webpage at the top), I find valuable and interesting to know which AI was behind it. Bun being anthropic, curious to what they have access to and what they used for this. I assumed Mythos or Opus 4.7, but I guess could be any other model as well.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#34The current level of insanity with AI is off the charts. Porting to a safe language without the safety features.
As a human I would likely port it the same way. First a translation close to 1:1 from the source, then redesign/refactor areas little by little to match the target language idioms
In some cases it's impossible. C to TCL almost fine, C mapped to Scheme, or Prolog, hell awaits, because Scheme's functions can reduce tons of redundant functions to a single one.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Comprehension debt will be the next manager's problem after I get promoted because of the massive vibecoded rewrite.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a human I would likely port it the same way. First a translation close to 1:1 from the source, then redesign/refactor areas little by little to match the target language idioms
In some cases it's impossible. C to TCL almost fine, C mapped to Scheme, or Prolog, hell awaits, because Scheme's functions can reduce tons of redundant functions to a single one.
Sure, but that doesn’t really apply to zig => rust
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#37Assertions 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.
I can't help thinking about Mitchell Hashimoto's recent post about "whole companies consumed by AI psychosis." I read that as naming Bun without directly naming Bun...
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that matter?
When I see something tagged as "AI generated" (as it does in this webpage at the top), I find valuable and interesting to know which AI was behind it. Bun being anthropic, curious to what they have access to and what they used for this. I assumed Mythos or Opus 4.7, but I guess could be any other model as well.
FWIW I would be really surprised if it’s not done with Mythos
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#39I have such contempt for this effort by Anthropic. Jarred has torpedoed so much of the goodwill Bun had earned.
Re: Bun's unreleased Rust port has 13,365 unsafe blocks
#40Could 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…
That’s the most absurd IMHO. Why not do the same experiment but module by module? And little by little rustify the whole codebase. It really feels like the whole project is a marketing experiment for Mythos
It seems that this era is a marketing experiment for Mythos.
We're running forward without any idea of how we can get agents to write code that is even remotely safe or secure. It _will_ blow up with increasingly large blast radiuses.