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

Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 754 posts

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#331

Post by brcmthrowaway »

malisper wrote: post #250
mohsen1 wrote: post #75

Very impressive that they could do this so quickly because I have been on a similar project (porting TypeScript to Rust) for 5 months. But I guess I don't have access to Mythos and unlimited tokens. I'm also close to 100% pass rate. 99.6% at the time of writing. https://tsz.dev Rust is perfect for writing all of code using LLM. It's strict type system makes is less likely to make very dumb mistakes that other languag…

Same but for multi-threaded Postgres[0]. 96% pg regression tests pass after 1 month and 823K LOC. 8 Codex accounts at $200/mo is what i could use up with no Mythos I've also seen the benefits of Rust for this too. And making the bet that my pg experience will help me make good design choices around many of the things people have been having trouble with in pg for a long time[1]. Excited to see AI make it more possibl…

1600/mo, there is now a token-rich class.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#332

Post by tln »

jwpapi wrote: post #314

Completely unbased, but I don’t want to have to do anything with bun anymore. It’s just a gut feeling, but I don’t trust them and support them. They fork Zig to utilize LLM rewrites and build something the Zig team clearly disregarded (non-deterministic compiling) And now like a whiny baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. There is a very real chance that Zig design philosophy got them to the point where they are now by enfo…

> And now like a winey baby they LLM rewrite to Rust.

I didn't see any whining from Jarred, this seems like misplaced sentiment

> It’s purely politics-based

The linked twitter thread gives clear technical justifications

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#333

Post by baranul »

pjmlp wrote: post #73
leecommamichael wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your claim that using Zig ends in an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs?" Wouldn't that mean that it isn't even feasible to make high-quality software with such a tool? There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++, so what is Zig doing wrong?

It is basically Modula-2 / Object Pascal with C like syntax. While bounds checking, improved argument passing, typed pointers, proper strings and arrays are an improvement over C, it still suffers from use after free cases. C++ already prevents many of those scenarios, at least for those folks that don't use it as a plain Better C, and actually make use of the standard library in hardned mode. When not, naturally is…

> Then there is the whole point that Zig is not yet 1.0, and who knows what will still change until then.

Seems like their luck finally ran out. For the longest time, they were getting all kinds of passes, as if a post 1.0 language, that others don't get. 10 years is quite a long time not to hit 1.0 or still be into beta breaking changes. Though I think that (the luck) was significantly aided by their perpetual and odd HN boosting.

> While bounds checking, improved argument passing, typed pointers, proper strings and arrays are an improvement over C, it still suffers from use after free cases.

While Zig was a bit safer and more modern C alternative, safety was arguably not so much their selling point. Plenty of other C alternative languages are equally or more safe. Dlang and Vlang, both now having optional GCs and ownership, are examples.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#334

Post by leecommamichael »

dangoodmanUT wrote: post #224

If this goes through, it feels like it will stoke rust on zig violence

I just wish the camps would stop being as tribalistic. I see a broad spectrum of fights between any "better C" language and Rust enthusiasts. There is room for both of these things. Just use what works for you. Rust is a bit more like Ada in spirit, it introduces a lot of friction compared to "C like" things which gladly accept you blowing your leg off. Each tool has unique benefits, and is uniquely suited to different problems.

If I'm building a simple GUI app, I'm not sure the friction from Rust is all that worthwhile. If I'm sending someone to space, I think I'd rather have the safeties of a Rust or an Ada, or MISRA C.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#335

Post by cute_boi »

tln wrote: post #332
jwpapi wrote: post #314

Completely unbased, but I don’t want to have to do anything with bun anymore. It’s just a gut feeling, but I don’t trust them and support them. They fork Zig to utilize LLM rewrites and build something the Zig team clearly disregarded (non-deterministic compiling) And now like a whiny baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. There is a very real chance that Zig design philosophy got them to the point where they are now by enfo…

> And now like a winey baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. I didn't see any whining from Jarred, this seems like misplaced sentiment > It’s purely politics-based The linked twitter thread gives clear technical justifications

It looks more political than technical. Also, criticizing the Zig team for not making any AI contributions before this gives a hint.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#336

Post by jwpapi »

tln wrote: post #332
jwpapi wrote: post #314

Completely unbased, but I don’t want to have to do anything with bun anymore. It’s just a gut feeling, but I don’t trust them and support them. They fork Zig to utilize LLM rewrites and build something the Zig team clearly disregarded (non-deterministic compiling) And now like a whiny baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. There is a very real chance that Zig design philosophy got them to the point where they are now by enfo…

> And now like a winey baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. I didn't see any whining from Jarred, this seems like misplaced sentiment > It’s purely politics-based The linked twitter thread gives clear technical justifications

> I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues

There are legit reasons to rewrite a program in a better fitting language, but as a runtime to be "tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability" is really borderline to me.

Also there are way more things to it than just compile time and tests: you reset mental model and will lose contributers. There is philosophy, developer skill and more attached to a language.

In this case both compile via LLVM the same and there is no performance benefit given the code is written exactly the same, so it’s developer preference, where the current head seemed to prioritize his own DX over everyone else’s.

But again this is mainly my gut feeling. I’m not the first dev that doesn’t like the way bun changes : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48011184

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#337

Post by foxes »

lioeters wrote: post #244
legerdemain wrote: post #38

From 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019226 > I work on Bun and this is my branch > > This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely. > > I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get i…

Also a few days before that: > I expect OSS to go the opposite direction: no human contribution allowed. Slop will be a nostalgic relic of 2025 & 2026. We should have seen this coming after they got acquired by Anthropic, but it's still disappointing. I'm not against large language models as a technology, just thoroughly disgusted how these "AI" companies rose to power, eating the software industry and the rest of so…

How could it possibly be open source if it requires proprietary models developed by a few companies to writs the code.

Seems like that would make open source entirely controlled by open ai, anthropic et al.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#338

Post by phamilton »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #88

And here I am trying to get an LLM to add types to a 100k line Ruby repository for 2 days, and it's not going so hot...

I have some experience in this. Reach out (email in my bio) I would love to chat.

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#339

Post by kllrnohj »

afavour wrote: post #57
leecommamichael wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your claim that using Zig ends in an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs?" Wouldn't that mean that it isn't even feasible to make high-quality software with such a tool? There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++, so what is Zig doing wrong?

> There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++ There’s a lot of leaky crap written in those languages too. One of the core promises of Rust is that the compiler will catch memory issues other languages won’t experience until runtime. If Zig doesn’t offer something similar it’ll make Rust very compelling.

Zig is a love letter to C. It does not do much of anything to address memory management. Doesn't even have any concept of ownership like C++ does (ergo, no equivalent of unique_ptr / shared_ptr). All you get over C is the addition of defer, and even that isn't really that different if you're using GCC or Clang and thus have __attribute__((cleanup)).

Re: Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibc

#340

Post by otterley »

yrjrjjrjjtjjr wrote: post #198
christopherwxyz wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s disrespectful to immediately jump to adversarial conclusions from a simple desire to refactor and poor netiquette.

The right to be suspicious of the motives of powerful people is infinitely more important than protecting their feelings from being hurt by suspicion.

This isn’t about rights. It’s about not being a jerk. Assume positive intent unless you have direct evidence to the contrary.
Post reply on HN