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

Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 822 posts

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#421

Post by baq »

12_throw_away wrote: post #381
zozbot234 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One potential way to solve this in a principled manner is to turn at least some "unsafe" annotations into ghost capability tokens that are explicitly threaded through the code and consistently checked by the compiler. Manufacturing the capability could itself be left as an unsafe operation, or require a runtime check of some kind. You already see this in some cases, for example the NonZero generic type can be viewed…

Yes, or you could review the code.

It’d only take an hour if you reviewed a million lines per hour

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#422

Post by Jarred »

vitaminCPP wrote: post #253

> +1009257 -4024 Bun is now over 1M lines of Rust code. This is approaching the size of the Rust compiler itself; except that BunJs is mostly a JavaScript interpreter wrapper + a reimplementation of the NodeJS library (Rust STD wrapper). I think BunJS is becoming the canary for software complexity management in the LLM era.

> mostly a JavaScript interpreter wrapper

Not accurate. Bun is a batteries-included JavaScript & CSS transpiler (parser), minifier, bundler, npm-like package manager, Jest-like test runner, as well as runtime APIs like a builtin Postgres, MySQL and Redis client. This is naturally a ton of code.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#424

Post by hombre_fatal »

q3k wrote: post #378
kllrnohj wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some project scale the language really stops being any limiting factor That's not entirely true. At a certain scale, some languages start becoming increasingly more of a factor. Memory issues in C/C++ codebases, for example. This is pretty well established at this point, which is why there's a push to move away from memory-unsafe languages. Which likely would include Zig, for better or worse.

I agree that new software should avoid memory unsafe languages, but I would disagree that rewriting existing projects in a memory safe language at all cost is a universally good idea.

But you just shifted the claim to "at all cost".

What if there isn't much cost? What if the benefits outweigh the cost?

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#425

Post by rglover »

Well this is uncomfy. Not what...a week ago this was just framed as an experiment and now it's being rammed through?

Even if it works/is correct/etc, this is shockingly careless.

If I'm going to be using your thing to build on top of, I sure as hell don't want to see you 180'ing a week after you just said you weren't going to do exactly what you just did.

Hard pass, purely on principle.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#426

Post by mort96 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #419
mort96 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bun is not a JavaScript interpreter, it's "only" a reimplementation of the NodeJS library + various other libraries. Bun uses JavaScriptCore as its JS engine. So Bun itself does (or at least should do) no JavaScript parsing, interpreting or JITing. EDIT: I misread, sorry! You said "JavaScript interpreter wrapper ", which is correct.

That’s what they said - “JavaScript interpreter wrapper”.

You're right, sorry! I completely missed the word "wrapper" somehow.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#427

Post by torben-friis »

debugnik wrote: post #355
bhaak wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It passed all the tests. If you can't trust your test suite to catch an automatic language translation you shouldn't trust it at all. :)

It also modified many of the tests to make them pass in mischievous ways. You can't trust a test suite to catch regressions if the new version doesn't use the same test suite.

I think demonstrating broken behavior in the new build would be interesting if you have a non passing test from the original suite

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#428

Post by grayhatter »

embedding-shape wrote: post #223
tasuki wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes sure it's ok to change your mind. But don't you think the people Jarred accused of "overreacting" in retrospect didn't?

No, what we knew then is still what was known then. Today is different, and seemingly they've committed to the rewrite, so now it makes sense that people have strong feelings about it, as it's no longer just an experiment.

> so now it makes sense that people have strong feelings about it, as it's no longer just an experiment.

It also makes sense to have strong feelings when you're able to pattern match well enough to predict something will happen despite others trying to convince you that your predictions are incorrect.

It's not overreacting when correctly predicting the future, just because others couldn't. In the same vein, the idea that "everyone out to get you" is not called paranoia when there are people actually out to get you. That's better called being observant.

Some of those who predicted correctly might also have overreacted, but I believe that the majority understood that to be a blanket statement about prediction as a whole vs any specific individual reaction.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#429

Post by shaewest »

ethanrutherford wrote: post #259
pronik wrote: post #242

By reading this thread I've learned that, apparently, you are not allowed to rewrite a large piece of software backed by a large test suite in another language within two weeks otherwise you are a witch and need to be burned on a stake. You are also not allowed to move from the PoC phase to lets-do-it phase within a couple of days without being called names. Why are we concerned with speed all of a sudden? Are we in…

That you're only just "learning" that these things are true is a damning admission. And to fix your bad analogy, it's more like "hey maybe we shouldn't be allowing f1 street races through school zones".

That analogy might work if this situation is 'reckless behaviour risking children's safety' but in this case it's much closer to 'We made an large, potentially risky change that you can choose to avoid until it's more mature'
Post reply on HN