571–580 of 646 posts
I see Bun’s Rust rewrite (esp the style how it was done) as a form of massive internet trolling for PR reasons. By making a bigger fuss about it, we’re feeding the troll
They are. Just wait until Jarred releases his blogpost and Anthropic marketing machine kicks in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What about people who view AI as a useful tool, and use it daily while still recognizing it’s limitations? I’m no AI hater, but there’s a limit to how much trust I give it and the Bun rewrite is well beyond that limit.
I think the issue is, we understand our own usage of it, and respect the boundaries of what's possible and what needs to be done to use these tools properly.
But we don't know how the other guy is using it.
We don't know if they're being responsible, and using it in a safe manner.
If they are: great. But if they aren't, we're opening ourselves up to all kinds of security shenanigans.
It's one of those things where we're only going to be okay with it, if we're the ones using it. But that also means other people will be suspect of our code.
It's really a no win scenario, except for inside each of own little bubbles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of the windows code has been written by its current maintainers? Little. I feel this argument is not valid, especially for large code bases. Documentation and code quality is what is important, not who wrote the code.
Isn't windows notoriously shoddy right now, so much so that Microsoft is making a big public effort to try to improve its quality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology What is politics without ideology?
Power struggle. Lying about manager from other team so that you look better. That sort of thing is regularly called politics.
It’s not like they are discriminating on someone’s race or religion. If they don’t want a major vibe coded surface, do they even have to defend that? It’s part their “artistic” license as developers. Or did we forget software inherently is opinionated
What does this use bun for? I thought this was a python project?
They need a JavaScript runtime to execute some challenges that certain pages present (like YouTube)
In the post the maintainer says that an older version of bun "results in the ejs lockfile being ignored".
The reason is that they never committed the necessary lockfile despite listing "support" for that bun version.
They have separate lockfiles for other package manager versions: bun.lock, deno.lock, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml.
This part of the comment is also interesting: "which is a significant security concern for users when considering all of the recent npm supply chain attacks".
If you would set up a proper build for the JS artifact instead of committing four lockfiles to your repository, users would not be as exposed to npm supply chain attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about people who view AI as a useful tool, and use it daily while still recognizing it’s limitations? I’m no AI hater, but there’s a limit to how much trust I give it and the Bun rewrite is well beyond that limit.
It's a bit of a contradiction. We understand that AI can be used usefully, and to great effect. But if someone else uses it, it's a potential liability. I think the issue is, we understand our own usage of it, and respect the boundaries of what's possible and what needs to be done to use these tools properly. But we don't know how the other guy is using it. We don't know if they're being responsible, and using it in…
It was used to write 1 million lines of code in a week.
Yes it was translating an existing codebase, but still there’s no way that is a safe transition.
Would you ship that at your job? I definitely would not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an actual look at the code, and because it's a translation it's not just straight up de novo slop. The bits I saw were fairly straightforward 1:1 translations, so the Bun developers should still be familiar with the overall structure and logic. I still think it's mad, but not quite as mad as you might first think from the headlines.
That doesn't change anything. No one can say with confidence, backed by proof, that the 1M slop is semantically equivalent to the old code. The code is a black box without that guarantee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who isn’t supporting using runtime rewritten by an LLM is obviously “doesn’t get it” and a luddite.
But in this case, the yt-dlp maintainers didn't actually evaluate the rewrite yet, they just declared they wouldn't support it, sight unseen. Not really an argument on its merits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, I don't know if the Bun team ever did try to upstream it. In their Twitter thread announcing their vibe-coded fork of the Zig compiler, they said they wouldn't bother trying to upstream their changes because of Zig's policy banning LLM-authored contributions. Still probably a calculated political move to cut ties with Zig and muster community support for a Rust rewrite. https://x.com/bunjavascript/status/…
They did try upstreaming to Zig, but it was rejected for already being implemented not because it was vide coded. https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio... Bun were so excited about their 4x speed improvement that they missed that Zig had already implemented it, plus other optimisations that were far larger.
Nothing in your link supports this assertion. Lots of things in your link support the exact opposite in fact, that the Bun team explicitly chose not to attempt to upstream the changes.