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

591–600 of 754 posts

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

#591

Post by scotty79 »

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…

I think such re-implementations will be a huge asset to the process of software developments in the future.

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

#592

Post by tkiolp4 »

woah wrote: post #390
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…

Who's the whiny baby? The developer writing some code in their own repo, or the guy complaining about it on Hacker News?

How can you be so blind? This is all a marketing campaign by anthropic. No more no less. The developers doing the rewrite have no voice at all in this game.

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

#593

Post by dandellion »

y3ahd0g wrote: post #463
dandellion wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four days ago there was no intention to rewrite, now it's a simple desire to refactor. It's not adversarial conclusion, it's pointing out the clear hypocrisy.

"People cannot change their mind! One must stick to old assertions forever! Giant foot is gonna squish us!" ...this forum is as bad as a single backwater sub Reddit. I am so sick of emotionally frail software engineers. I don't know why I keep bothering floating back here every once in a while to see what is up. Same old rustled jimmies over technology evolution like back during the emacs and vi! tabs vs spaces! Sysv…

Okay, that's such a shallow take I'm going to try and explain it to you like you're 5 years old:

Changing your mind is okay, for example if someone said it was impossible to do the migration with current LLMs and it turns out they did it in four days, that person can and should admit they were wrong. That's not what he did though. What he did is say he had no intention of doing it, and then did it. That is lying. If he was testing and he didn't know if the change was going to be worth it, he could have said for example:

"This branch is a test, it's not a given it will work so until we see the results we won't decide if we'll be migrating or not."

He didn't say anything like that though, he basically said:

"We have no intention to migrate."

Why did he said the latter and not the former? Because he wasn't being honest, he was just trying to get people off his back, and so he didn't say what he was doing, the best for his own interest. We have a saying in my country: "it's easier to catch a liar than someone who's lame".

Also, before you come and say but he said he had no "intention" not that he wasn't gonna do it. A five year old might think that's a valid argument, but this person is an adult and we're all adults here, so it's not, it's equivocation and it's a logical fallacy.

> I am so sick of emotionally frail software engineers.

Then don't look in the mirror, you're probably being the biggest crybaby in this thread so far.

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

#594

Post by tkiolp4 »

pier25 wrote: post #446
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…

> It’s purely politics-based not technical Jarred mentioned having to work on fixing memory leaks as the main motivation to try this. https://xcancel.com/jarredsumner/status/2053058171338682875#... I was never fully comfortable with Zig given it's much less mature than Rust. Maybe this will be for the better.

He is a puppet. Anthropic is making him a billionaire. No surprise no one here can notice the difference

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

#595

Post by dandellion »

christopherwxyz wrote: post #271
dandellion wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four days ago there was no intention to rewrite, now it's a simple desire to refactor. It's not adversarial conclusion, it's pointing out the clear hypocrisy.

Being able to change your mind is a excellent exercise in free will.

Totally.

Saying you don't intend to do something and then doing it is free will.

It's also lying. They are not mutually exclusive.

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

#596

Post by tkiolp4 »

spicyusername wrote: post #11

What a time to be alive. So much of the fundamental dynamics of the industry and the job have changed in so little time. Basically over night. Some days I am so excited at how much I can do now. You can build anything you want, in basically no time! 100% of my software dreams can be a reality. Some days I am terrified at what's going to happen to the job market. Suddenly you can get so much with so little. The world…

It’s pure marketing. Don’t be naive

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

#597

Post by dandellion »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #220
dandellion wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four days ago there was no intention to rewrite, now it's a simple desire to refactor. It's not adversarial conclusion, it's pointing out the clear hypocrisy.

Running an experiment, the experiment being more successful than you thought, and then deciding to put more effort into a bigger experiment is not hypocrisy. It’s engineering. If you think some of the objective facts they’re putting out (like test coverage and performance) are lies, go and prove it instead of appealing to emotion.

Running an experiment and deciding based on the results is not hypocrisy, it's engineering, 100%.

Saying you have no intention of doing something then doing it is not engineering, it's being dishonest. He could have said "well decide when we see the results", why didn't he?

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

#598

Post by Zakis1 »

oytis wrote: post #267
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bad faith argument. How long would it take a dev or a team of devs to do this with the same architecture and test suite? A hell of a lot longer than 6 days..

But what is the purpose? When you rewrite a project in another language, it's for engineers to be able to maintain and further develop the project better on some metrics due to advantages of the language. It doesn't hold when LLM does the rewrite, since there is no one who understands the code after that. It's a good demonstration of capabilities, sure, but the result itself makes no sense. We'll have to figure out w…

> When you rewrite a project in another language, it's for engineers to be able to maintain and further develop the project better

I don't think that is the case here. Bun is pretty much using AI to write all of it's code, with a human reviewing it. Zig exists as a language to provide a nice DX over C and Rust, not to be memory safe. If you are using an LLM to generate code, the DX benefits are removed and so then why would you ever choose Zig over Rust?

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

#599

Post by titularcomment »

eikenberry wrote: post #124
anilgulecha wrote: post #9

I think the industry is moving to English as the programming language, and specifications-context-tdd as the framework for building software. Many find it distasteful, and many finding liberating. I think it's broadly correlates with how they feel about expressing themselves in english vs say C++. As a side question, is there anyone who's using LLMs primarily in non-english mode to program? I suspect there's quite a…

I think it will eventually be its own dialect of English. Telling LLMs what to do is better using not quite normal English and I think this will continue until it isn't recognizable as natural English anymore, but a new fuzzy programming language (probably >1).

I believe new (programming) languages will emerge both for LLMs to parse and take instructions from as well as for them to generate code in. The former is because English is a nuanced language evolved for human usage which the LLMs don't quite need, with the only advantage of it being a metric ton of training material. Same goes for Rust, Go and other languages LLMs do primarily well coding in, which all have concepts geared towards human convenience.

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

#600

Post by boxed »

lionkor wrote: post #530
Tiberium wrote: post #34

I just want to comment that I think it's a good change if we look past the AI involvement. Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs due to them using Zig, unlike Deno which is Rust. Of course, if Bun's Rust port has tons of `unsafe`, it won't magically solve them all, but it'll still get better

> Of course, if Bun's Rust port has tons of `unsafe`, it won't magically solve them all, but it'll still get better You get very few of the Rust guarantees when you litter your code with unsafe to get around the safety checks (which is what they're doing here). I would not recommend running this in production.

From what I understand, rust "unsafe" is actually pretty damn safe compared to an actually memory unsafe language.
Post reply on HN