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

721–730 of 822 posts

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#721

Post by throwaway277432 »

12_throw_away wrote: post #452
hombre_fatal wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is never a right way, only trade offs. The thing about being a Monday morning quarterback is that you can always claim you would have used even more caution and process.

> you can always claim you would have used even more caution and process. Well, specifically, my claim is that any serious professional in this industry would have done so. But we're essentially in agreement, in the sense that yes, I am allowed to make this claim, and in fact already did, in the comment you are replying to. EDIT: Actually I've been thinking about this a bit more. The thing about commenting on somethi…

>serious professional in this industry

As a serious professional in the industry - we're dinosaurs. Nobody cares anymore.

The kids are running the show and are making billions with stuff that doesn't work. But it makes money so nobody cares.

This is not a new phenomenon, it started years ago and really took off when JS became the new hotness. You could see it happening live, right here on HN. But the blast radius is massively increased now with AI and people are getting hurt. It's not funny.

The ship has sailed on rigor.

The sad thing is that this is not going to get better. The best we can hope for is slight improvements to agentic "engineering" practice with lots and lots of blog posts on HN written about how they are rediscovering basic engineering practices.

We (the dinosaurs) will roll our eyes while making a fraction of the money the kids are making.

And even if the whole AI ecosystem implodes (it won't) that would be a massive recession and certainly wouldn't make the remaining software engineering work more rigorous either.

As the Simpsons put it: "An I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#722

Post by vga1 »

bmitc wrote: post #705
cortesoft wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just use AI for yourself and see. It isn't some mysterious product that only a few people get to use.

Most people do use LLMs, which is why they have the so-called pessimistic opinions they do.

Judging by most public comments, people are really mediocre at using them. I don't get how it's possible to get such poor results from them.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#723

Post by oskarkk »

shimman wrote: post #642
oskarkk wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a technology that already deeply struggles to find customers As far as I know it's the opposite, Anthropic struggles to satisfy demand, they have tons of paying customers and their customer base is growing fast.

Wow as far as you know? That settles it then! Just ignore this: https://www.flyingpenguin.com/wheres-ed-anthropic-told-court...

So, your link shows that they probably have like $1 billion in sales per month (but they publicly overstated this by 30%), and that's the struggle to find customers?

There are tons of posts and reporting about Anthropic's problems with meeting demand, usage limits (on paid plans, especially during peak hours), fast growth (your link confirms that), and problems with infrastructure.

Some links:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-throttles-claude...

https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/28/anthropics-claude-populari...

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#724

Post by preisschild »

mrweasel wrote: post #699
ninjahawk1 wrote: post #11

“+1,000,000” changes in a single commit is insane.

Why would they do it like this? It makes no real sense to me. At that point it's an entirely different project, with the same functionality. If you use Bun in production, does this feel like a well managed upstream? I don't use Bun, I don't care that they are using an LLM (though it is impressive that this actually worked), but the project management aspects of this is just wacky.

Because Anthropic owns Bun and they use it for marketing purposes.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#725

Post by JackSlateur »

keeganpoppen wrote: post #395

i find it hilarious how desperate people are to cope that this can’t possibly work, must be horrible, etc. for all i know, it is. but let’s just see how well it works, rather than “no true scotsman” grouse about it. it is so sad. it reeks of “doth protest too much” energy. if it were so obvious that ai was insufficient to do the work, then i don’t think you’d have to circle the wagons about it. you could just confide…

Last time I took the Time to see details about such crap, it was CCC.

Great advertisement, fails to compile a random C projet I have, waste of my time.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#726

Post by bogdiyan »

I wonder what portion of the migration was contributed by Mythos. Surely the Bun team now has access to more powerful models, but could such a migration be done with just Opus 4.7? Nonetheless, nearly 7k commits is impressive.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#727

Post by AlienRobot »

bmitc wrote: post #706
prashantk_ wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better to know where memory bugs may happen than them being everywhere. Also, bun team are looking it to reduce it by a large margin. Since it was a line by line port, there is a good space for improvement. By first rust release, a significant number of it should be resolved.

Wouldn't it be better to port more idiomatically? Otherwise, you've done nothing but port all the existing bugs while creating new ones.

That's one problem with LLM's. I had claude write a function in python for me that did a bit of math, because, like most programmers, I don't know math.

The function worked perfectly mathematically speaking, but after a bit of research I realized a human being would never write a piece of code so bad.

I don't remember exactly, but it looked like this:

    denominators = [...]

    def lcm(a, b):
        return abs(a * b) // math.gcd(a, b)
    
    return reduce(lcm, denominators)
There are 2 problems with this code.

First, that is the correct way to calculate the LCM that you'll quickly learn if you google it (or if you ask claude). The problem: math.lcm already exists! Any human being writing this would have paused to think "wait, Python has math.gcd, does it have math.lcm as well?" And then they would have just used that.

Second, you don't even need reduce. You can just math.lcm(*denominators). A human being would have realized this when intellisense showed it takes any number of arguments instead of just 2.

Pretty much every time I used an LLM to generate code it generates a rough draft barely held together that needs to be completely rewritten later. With Qt for example it generated 2 push buttons for Ok/Cancel when there is QDialogButtonBox for this that even orders the buttons to match the typical system order, or when generating a combo box that associated labels with objects it tried to figure out which object from the text of the label of the items when there is already a way to just set an arbitrary object for each item and then get it later with .currentData().

Every single time it makes me think: yes, this works. But no, not like this.

I can't imagine with 1 million lines of this feels like.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#728

Post by user34283 »

bmitc wrote: post #704
sesm wrote: post #368

When announcements say that rewrite took 1 week, I wonder how much time went into preparing this file with very detailed instructions on mapping Zig to Rust idioms: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/46d3bc29f270fa881dd573... On top of that, if you look at 'Pointers & ownership' and 'Collections' sections, the Bun codebase is already prepared, using internal smart pointer types that map 1-to-1 to Rust equivalents,…

That makes the Bun owner's claim, just a week ago in this site, even more dubious when he came on here and said this code was just an experiment and likely to be thrown away.

I don't think the owner lied, but rather that the entirely speculative comment on here is obviously wrong.

It says here in the comments that it's mistaken about the supposed previous existence of the crate.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#729

Post by dom96 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #583
dom96 wrote: post #564

I'm curious where this leaves Zig. Bun was the most prominent and biggest project using it. What's left?

It leaves it in the same vibe realm as Nim. A terrific language but probably never hitting mainstream. You're familiar with Nim. ;)

Doesn’t seem like it is in the same adoption realm. I wasn’t aware Ghostty was written in Zig and I’m not aware of any Nim project ever reaching the heights of Ghostty (or indeed Bun). Plus as others state, Zig is still pre-1.0.

Things do look significantly better for Zig adoption-wise than for Nim as far as I can tell.

Re: Rewrite Bun in Rust has been merged

#730

Post by ForHackernews »

ku5h wrote: post #700
Tesl wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really out the loop here so maybe you can help answer me a question - why is HN unhappy about this rewrite? why are people writing here almost as if they feel betrayed by Bun being rewritten from Zig into Rust? I genuinely don't get it. I've been following this Bun stuff a bit but I don't understand where the HN sentiment is coming from.

Because in the software world, especially before 2022, ownership and stability have been valued. People like using things that do not randomly start breaking more often after every new release, and if things break, there is a human who knows exactly why it broke and what's the best way to fix it. Businesses would not want their losses to be attributed to an AI rewriting an entire codebase. AI owns nothing, not even t…

> Businesses would not want their losses to be attributed to an AI rewriting an entire codebase. AI owns nothing, not even the bugs which it produces. I would not want my SaaS to have downtime because a JavaScript runtime it depends on decided that they had to market their LLM by rewriting years of code recklessly.

I don't know how else to say this but "Tough Shit"? Businesses are building their entire enterprise on the volunteer work donated by the free software community (or given away for free by some other company solving its own problems).

If you don't want 'your' SaaS to have downtime based on somebody else's whims, then fucking pay for your own developers (or your own AI) to build your SaaS platform in house. That's what IBM did in the 1970s, and nothing except market pressure is stopping you from doing it today.

I'm sorry for the vulgarity but this entitled attitude of businesses toward FREE SOFTWARE GIVEN TO THEM FOR NO MONEY is infuriating. If the electric company decided to give your company free power on windy days, would you then get angry that they installed a new model of turbine?

Post reply on HN