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

601–610 of 754 posts

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

#601

Post by tkiolp4 »

arjie wrote: post #121

This is remarkable. Man, there are all those ancient things that "we've lost the source code for". One time, in a past job 10 years ago we were reimplementing something that was lost to the sands of time, using an out of date spec it had used. It was such a tedious job with verification but we got there. Amazing how easy that would be today.

Are you sure you will be able to spend time playing around that kind of stuff when anthropic/openai/google/etc make you jobless? (well, perhaps not YOU precisely, but 90% of devs, so there’s a high chance).

We always think it’s not gonna hit us… we may be wrong

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

#602

Post by zurfer »

wolttam wrote: post #150
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…

Certainly companies and governments will have access to better models than the public (in fact, that's already the case with Mythos). The public will still be able to help themselves with models that are behind the frontier.

Maybe, or they use the same smartphones as everybody else. The mass market also wants the best model and will pay accordingly.

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

#603

Post by __loam »

wallstop wrote: post #452
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ah, yes, the "you're holding it wrong" defense. If one tool has a higher safety rating than another, significantly so, preventing entire classes of mistakes from happening that the other does not, in a kind of superset manner - even the most skilled craftsman will inevitably make mistakes that would have been prevented by the safer tool.

[flagged]

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

#604

Post by __loam »

f311a wrote: post #548
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the main problem with Bun is that they are trying to move very quickly. Tigebeetle devs spend 90% time working on stability, safety, tests and so on. They don't need new features, they need reliable software. Their database is pretty simple in terms of features and their goal was always stability and speed. Bun devs spend the majority of the time adding new features.

Maybe they should put more consideration towards quality if they have a ton of memory issues.

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

#606

Post by __loam »

kllrnohj wrote: post #339
afavour wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of quality stuff made with C/C++ There’s a lot of leaky crap written in those languages too. One of the core promises of Rust is that the compiler will catch memory issues other languages won’t experience until runtime. If Zig doesn’t offer something similar it’ll make Rust very compelling.

Zig is a love letter to C. It does not do much of anything to address memory management. Doesn't even have any concept of ownership like C++ does (ergo, no equivalent of unique_ptr / shared_ptr). All you get over C is the addition of defer, and even that isn't really that different if you're using GCC or Clang and thus have __attribute__((cleanup)).

Zig does in fact do some stuff to address memory management like making allocations more explicit using allocators and shipping with arenas.

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

#607

Post by __loam »

himata4113 wrote: post #432
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…

I consider zig the "whiny baby" approach to be honest.

[flagged]

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

#608

Post by shmichael »

lioeters wrote: post #244
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…

Also a few days before that: > I expect OSS to go the opposite direction: no human contribution allowed. Slop will be a nostalgic relic of 2025 & 2026. We should have seen this coming after they got acquired by Anthropic, but it's still disappointing. I'm not against large language models as a technology, just thoroughly disgusted how these "AI" companies rose to power, eating the software industry and the rest of so…

So you argue we discriminate based on who/what wrote the code, instead of what's in it?

Let's take this to a different domain, self driving cars. Would you equally argue for human driving? I'm pretty sure over time it will become clear to everyone that machines will be able to outperform humans consistently at this task, to the degree that human driving will become illegal. But for now the press likes to focus on any failure of machine driving, taking for granted human drivers are the largest or second largest cause of premature death in many countries.

Coding (in many ways, but not all) is a more open ended and versatile task than driving, so it's natural that current iterations seem untrustworthy, but ignoring the trajectory is erring on conservatism, and doesn't seem to me to be grounded in any sound reasoning.

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

#609

Post by [deleted] »

awesome_dude wrote: post #369
IshKebab wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err https://github.com/petgraph/petgraph What are you asking for exactly?

I don't think it's unreasonable, even though I am getting marked down for daring to ask, for people who are making assertions, even if they are well understood *within their own community* (that is, not necessarily universally known) to show examples of what they are talking about. You're correcting someone, so it's clear that your understanding isn't universal, and example code is the absolute minimum.

[deleted]

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

#610

Post by Aeolos »

lionkor wrote: post #531
mezyt wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great case where rust works well too. I won't cite every famous libs that got rewritten in rust but it wasn't all with LLM.

I fail to think of a successful Rust rewrite, so far what I've seen is just programmers who aren't sufficiently experienced, who decide to pick Rust and rewrite something in it, and then (this is the bad part) claim it's better for that reason only. It never is. It's always worse, because rewrites fundamentally end up with a worse product first.

https://fishshell.com/blog/rustport/
Post reply on HN