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

Bun support is now limited and deprecated

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 646 posts

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#341

Post by jagged-chisel »

egorfine wrote: post #202
apalmer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really political. Or let me rephrase possibly yt-dl is being political. VUT the concept of 'not adopting a core dependency until it has been widely used in production for 6 months - a year.', is not a political on general. A full rewrite of 1 million loc is essentially a new runtime that has the same ABI as the previous and for many downstream consumers it's not something they are comfortable taking a produc…

> A full rewrite of 1 million loc is essentially a new runtime It's not a rewrite exactly. Nobody wrote anything. Not a single human has even seen, much less understood those 1m lines.

Who or what does the writing doesn’t determine whether it was a rewrite. It was definitely a rewrite. Maybe it was 100% automated. But it’s a rewrite.

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#342

Post by johnfn »

dwaite wrote: post #316
truncate wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political. I disagree that this is a political stance. People based on their experiences have formed opinions on whether they trust that model of development or not. Bun having taking extreme measure of going 100% in within a week is itself extreme positioning from their side which will likely result in extreme reactions because depending on wh…

I disagree as well, and wonder if the OP meant an emotional or ideological stance instead.

Yes - this is indeed what I meant, thanks.

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#343

Post by crowcroft »

maxloh wrote: post #12

I understand their decision. How could the maintainers understand their codebase if most of it was not directly written by them? It is impossible to review the entire rewritten codebase. There are just too many lines of code, 1 million lines to be exact [1]. [1]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30412

This is why I require all my software to have bespoke compilers otherwise how can I trust the devs know what their code is actually running!?

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#345

Post by johnfn »

truncate wrote: post #324
irishcoffee wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all sincerity, what does political even mean in this context? ELI5, I’m a toddler when it comes to the politics of AI/LLMs.

Its a polarizing world with AI. There are fanboys drinking the kool-aid blindly listening to whatever Sammy/Dario/... say as gospel, and on other side there are haters who again blindly reject the fact that these AI tools can be actually be useful. I think that's what the politics is.

Yes - exactly! I honestly thought I was going crazy when a bunch of people were saying that this decision wasn't political in the slightest.

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#346

Post by johnfn »

happytoexplain wrote: post #248
johnfn wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I meant by political. I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought". EDIT: Everyone is rightfully calling me out that this doesn't make a lot of sense. What I meant is that the move is driven by ideology. I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology, and an increasing amount of overlap between ideology and emotion. But it's fair enough to c…

I can't see how this counts as "political" or "ideological" by your definition unless you believe that emotion can't exist as part of any decision, in which case you should give up interacting with human beings entirely. Regardless, the decision was 99% logical. In fact, even the emotional parts are laudable. For example, I love software. That's an emotion. If you disagree with that foundation, we will fundamentally…

The opposite of political would be someone saying "I have observed that Bun has X, Y and Z bugs -- therefore we are no longer support it". An example of this is the recent announcement that Ghostty is leaving GitHub[1]. Compare and contrast the rationale:

> I've felt this way for a long time, but for the past month I've kept a journal where I put an "X" next to every date where a GitHub outage has negatively impacted my ability to work2. Almost every day has an X. On the day I am writing this post, I've been unable to do any PR review for ~2 hours because there is a GitHub Actions outage3. This is no longer a place for serious work if it just blocks you out for hours per day, every day.

That isn't ideological in the slightest. Count the X's, and move off once you see too many.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47939579

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#347

Post by tilltheend »

raincole wrote: post #128
827a wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI in case you aren't aware, the rewrite was shipped, and then had to be reverted due to issues being discovered. That's "Jarred's high quality bar" you're so confident in.

The whole point of having canary builds is that they're unstable. That's why they're called canary. Rockets failing in test flights isn't a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. It is good that the rocket doesn't fail during the test flight.

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#348

Post by giancarlostoro »

827a wrote: post #86
torben-friis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any significant issues caused by the vibecoded translation? To be clear, I'm not implying support for the merge. I am against this whole YOLO approach to engineering. Just curious how the switch is going since I haven't seen any news since the merge announcement.

IMO the source of the new code is less important than the sheer volume of it. Bun does not need to be entirely rewritten; certainly not over a period of a week, possibly not even over a period of a year. Stability is hard-fought and battle-tested. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face; and every repository has passing tests until it runs production code.

How many lines of translated code would have been acceptable? What about before AI all the machine translated projects that people used for years without a single complaint? The person who did this was the lead for Bun from the get go no? So it stands to reason that they are one of the highest authorities in Bun itself.

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#349

Post by paxcoder »

TheCoreh wrote: post #329
maxloh wrote: post #12

I understand their decision. How could the maintainers understand their codebase if most of it was not directly written by them? It is impossible to review the entire rewritten codebase. There are just too many lines of code, 1 million lines to be exact [1]. [1]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30412

It's not impossible, or even that hard to review the entire rewritten codebase. 10 engineers each reviewing 5,000 LoC a day for 20 days can do it. And that is being highly conservative with the estimate. A good chunk of the the code is probably highly trivial boilerplate one can easily skim over in minutes.

[dead]

Re: Bun support is now limited and deprecated

#350

Post by GlacierFox »

happytoexplain wrote: post #332
pizlonator wrote: post #245

I can’t help but read the logic as not being too far off from: “libfoo switched to being developed using emacs instead of vim so we can’t trust it anymore” It’s not the same obviously, but here’s why I can’t help but view it analogously: The only truth in software is whether it works or not for whatever your use case is. Even before AI, we couldn’t have known if the author of a piece of software was proceeding with r…

>I can’t help but read the logic as not being too far off from: “libfoo switched to being developed using emacs instead of vim so we can’t trust it anymore” That's wild. You should read it as being nowhere in the same ballpark nor adjacent ballparks as that.

Yea for real. Like how is it possible to even formulate that as anywhere near the subject matter in any way, shape or form :S
Post reply on HN