This Bun rewrite feels like a potential Mythos marketing stunt.
[flagged]
It’s just a standard Pavlovian response of a bootlicker, it can also be triggered if you mention “tax the rich” and “regulate AI hyperscalers”.
81–90 of 366 posts
This Bun rewrite feels like a potential Mythos marketing stunt.
[flagged]
It’s just a standard Pavlovian response of a bootlicker, it can also be triggered if you mention “tax the rich” and “regulate AI hyperscalers”.
Dumbest point ever. There is no value for this issue. I don't agree with the way they did the rewrite, but they did the rewrite, and this post contributes nothing, beside making the author seem childish. If it had any real contribution I would have waved it off, but it really doesn't. This tribalism and "I'm better than you"-ism and the same reason everybody hated the stack overflow community, and the rust community…
So many people are fundamentally misunderstanding everything about this rewrite. In fact using the word "rewrite" itself is pretty inaccurate. As has been mentioned the goal was a port so they "could" eventually rewrite most of it to be idiomatic rust. The main benefit of this now is the compiler and being able to use these tools to fix issues that were already being hidden when it was in zig. If you go into this cod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm not sure that HN is that influential that buying up a few accounts would matter. To what end?
What I don't understand is if they were going to translate Zig to unsafe Rust, why not just build a translation tool for it? You could do a one-to-one mapping of language constructs, hardcoding patterns in your codebase, and as one friend put it "Tbh they could've just hooked up zig translate-c to c2rust". They would get deterministic translation, would probably have not been a heavy investment to build, and the outp…
This doesn’t work like you think it does. These things are full of errors and make the code very verbose and hard to reason about. It works with small apps, not entire rewrites.
What I don't understand is if they were going to translate Zig to unsafe Rust, why not just build a translation tool for it? You could do a one-to-one mapping of language constructs, hardcoding patterns in your codebase, and as one friend put it "Tbh they could've just hooked up zig translate-c to c2rust". They would get deterministic translation, would probably have not been a heavy investment to build, and the outp…
> "Tbh they could've just hooked up zig translate-c to c2rust". Have you ever seen what comes out of c2rust? It's awful. It relies on a library of functions which emulate unsafe C pointer semantics with unsafe Rust. A few years ago, when I was struggling with bugs in OpenJPEG (a JPEG 2000 decoder), someone tried running it through c2rust. The converted unsafe rust segfaulted at the same place the C code did. It's com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, and there's been a lot of confusion about that on this website. They did cite Rust's safety as a motivating factor for the port. That doesn't imply trying to achieve that simultaneously with the language change — which is good, because that would be insane. (Or, if you prefer, even more insane.) You cannot faithfully port a codebase to a new language while also radically re-architecting it. You have to choose. Th…
Yeah, exactly. The typical approach is to do a mechanical translation such as with rust2c, that is full of unsafe, and then gradually refactor safety in.
This Bun rewrite feels like a potential Mythos marketing stunt.
Thus far most of the buzz and marketing has been entirely negative from people who are against AI.
My take is that most of the buzz is also tied to recent negative opinions of Anthropic themselves due to some of their recent decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safe Rust does. Unsafe Rust allows you to tell the compiler “hold my beer”. It’s a concession to the reality that the normal restrictions of Rust disallow some semantically valid programs that you might otherwise want to write. The safeguards work great in most cases, but in some they’re overly restrictive. In practice, the overwhelming majority of code is able to be written in safe Rust and the compiler can have you…
OK but the title says "in safe Rust". Am I misunderstanding something? All the replies here are saying how it's allowed in unsafe Rust, which is not what the title says.
Here's some links on this topic which have some examples:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/working-with-unsafe.html https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2016/01/09/the-scope-of-unsafe.htm...