51–60 of 113 posts
I for one am definitely going to stick to Node.js instead of taking my chances with Bun.
Bottom line is we didn’t have a measurement of safety before the port, and we don’t have one now.
What we do have is a known list of unsafe blocks, and we can use that as our safety measure. (I’m neither a Zig not Rust programmer, but I’m guessing that the unsafe parts of the Zig codebase were also mostly measurable so we could have had this measure.)
I do wonder if the next step is to move bun into WASM for an additional layer of security. Those unsafe blocks might be neutered by not granting WASM the ability to run them. That would give anthropic a “sandboxed by default” opportunity.
It’s a fun project to watch!
The irony of a post about a port primarily written by Claude having been primarily written by Claude on a website primarily designed by Claude. Come on.
Claude (and Codex) designed the site, mostly because I'm not a UI coder; if I'd designed the site nobody'd want to read it but me, simply thanks to the UX. And I have a full-time job and more; I draft with an LLM's assistance and revise with another LLM (and other humans where possible) because I'm just arrogant enought o think that what I think might be useful to others. If it's not useful to you, I get it. Such is…
These days due to usage of LLMs I developed (unknowingly) an LLM detector when reading these. I actually get distracted.
So please, I believe you do have something to tell to the world, but please take it slower. No need to rush. I'd rather have something to read uniquely made by you.
The irony of a post about a port primarily written by Claude having been primarily written by Claude on a website primarily designed by Claude. Come on.
Claude (and Codex) designed the site, mostly because I'm not a UI coder; if I'd designed the site nobody'd want to read it but me, simply thanks to the UX. And I have a full-time job and more; I draft with an LLM's assistance and revise with another LLM (and other humans where possible) because I'm just arrogant enought o think that what I think might be useful to others. If it's not useful to you, I get it. Such is…
The issue is the quippy titles, “something - aside - continue” phrasing, and other constructions are feel like they or actually are wholly LLM written. I find a high correlation to this and low density fluff. The author did not have 10 paragraphs of things to say, but used an LLM to inflate a short outline to that. We would all of been better off with a tighter document - either human written or better prompted.
Deno was already implemented in Rust, and not done by vibe-coding. Would you trust a fully vibe-coded runtime? Not some features, not some fixes, but a full translation from one language to another.
IMO, the main problem with vibe coding is that it empowers reckless behavior at companies like Microsoft, and that people with no serious investment in outcomes are empowered to make things. Does that apply to Anthropic? The Bun team? It's not 100% clear yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans can make errors; part of why I waited so long to write and post this is because I'm not a great Rust coder (at all) and I don't use Bun, so I felt like I lacked enough relevant insight to say anything, and this is part of that, I think.
> Humans can make errors Sure, that makes sense, no one bats an eye over that. But this seems like a typical LLM hallucination, get the overall picture right, but misattributed where the actual work was done, this time it confused a GitHub feature for a feature of that particular repository, very common LLM mistake. I'd be curious to know, if you were actually the one who made this mistake, how it actually came about…
So I did some casual research, but used generalized numbers and impressions; I wasn't trying to pretend deep research, and some of the numbers (like the 99.8%) were drawn from publications and discussions that seemed not in debate.
I am not an akshual journalist - I'm a systems architect who enjoys writing, who's served in a sort of journalistic role, and I sometimes write about topics that are not in my area of expertise. I don't write JS often myself; I've looked at Bun, particularly when it first came out, but my in-depth experience with it is minimal, so I'm writing everything from afar, and that includes the impression about the git interaction, which people wrote about and from which I inferred my conclusion, particularly because I didn't see the point of manually triggering the rejection.
> For scale: uv, a Rust project of broadly comparable size from the same general corner of the ecosystem, contains 73. As a point of information: uv's use of `unsafe` largely involves interactions with OS APIs that don't have safe wrappers yet (in practice, this is mostly Win32 and similar APIs). It makes sense that Bun would have more `unsafe` than uv does, insofar as it needs to interact with JavaScriptCore's C API…
The irony of a post about a port primarily written by Claude having been primarily written by Claude on a website primarily designed by Claude. Come on.
Claude (and Codex) designed the site, mostly because I'm not a UI coder; if I'd designed the site nobody'd want to read it but me, simply thanks to the UX. And I have a full-time job and more; I draft with an LLM's assistance and revise with another LLM (and other humans where possible) because I'm just arrogant enought o think that what I think might be useful to others. If it's not useful to you, I get it. Such is…
For your workflow, I'd suggest drafting with a LLM to help you find the right balance of content, and then throwing all of that out and writing it yourself. Otherwise, it won't sound like you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude (and Codex) designed the site, mostly because I'm not a UI coder; if I'd designed the site nobody'd want to read it but me, simply thanks to the UX. And I have a full-time job and more; I draft with an LLM's assistance and revise with another LLM (and other humans where possible) because I'm just arrogant enought o think that what I think might be useful to others. If it's not useful to you, I get it. Such is…
Why can't you just publish the prompt instead? Do you not see how LLMs subtly alter your original message and erase your voice? They fill gaps that didn't exist, they create syllogisms that make no sense, and the voice is now so ridiculously AIdiosyncratic that it makes my eyes boil! If you have a message that takes 100 words to say, do not use a LLM to add 400 words to it, this isn't a school assignment! Stretching…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, as long as all the code in all those unsafe blocks is sound ! If not, the program is UB and all bets are off for every line of the codebase . I think Rust strikes a perfect balance between a safe default and, as you say, "localized unsafety". Said localized unsafety is however only localized as long as you're "doing it right". I would absolutely not trust an LLM to do it right for hundreds of thousands of lines…
Right, but the point is that you now have an explicit todo list of blocks to fix. You can trivially enumerate all sources of unsafety, and when a grep for unsafe blocks turns up empty you know your codebase is memory safe. When could you say the same about your Zig or C/C++ codebase? I'm writing this as someone who doesn't even really like Rust; I'd probably prefer to write Zig! But those unsafe blocks definitely buy…
I don't see how this is any different from every line trailing with a comment of the form "FIXME: This line might be wrong".
And I say this as something of a Rust fanboy. I love the way unsafe blocks work, and the "locality of danger" they give you. But that all goes out the window if there's a gazillion haphazardly written such blocks.