Bun.Image
bun.com
Bun.Image
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Bun.Image
#2> The API is shaped after Sharp: construct from an input, chain transforms, pick an output format, then await a terminal method.
(https://sharp.pixelplumbing.com/)
Good! I like the pipeline workflow.
Re: Bun.Image
#3Glad to see that Bun is doing something that Java has been doing since 1998.
Re: Bun.Image
#4Nice to see lots of LLM-generated text
Re: Bun.Image
#5This looks like one of the better pieces of LLM-output documentation I've seen. It's bad technical writing, but better than most of what I've seen come out of an LLM.
---------------
Pre-empting the "how can you tell", here's some of the tells.
> The API is shaped after Sharp:
Constantly using "shaped" and "shape" is becoming an LLM-ism, much more common than in human writing.
> The constructor accepts a path, bytes, or a Blob — including Bun.file() and Bun.s3().
> The format is sniffed from the bytes — extensions and Content-Type are ignored.
Repeatedly formatting statements as X: Y, X — Y, or [b]X[b] Y is also an LLM-ism.
> Don’t pass user-controlled strings directly to the constructor — that’s an arbitrary-file-read primitive.
> When passing a TypedArray/ArrayBuffer, don’t mutate it while a terminal is pending — decode runs off-thread and borrows the bytes.
Doing so by leading with what-it's-not / what-not-to-do is even more of an LLM-ism.
Re: Bun.Image
#6I really like this. Having image manipulation as a core standard library feature rather than an optional package makes complete sense to me for a web development platform in 2026.
It's not like image manipulation is a poorly understood problem or a fast-moving field.
Re: Bun.Image
#7This looks like one of the better pieces of LLM-output documentation I've seen. It's bad technical writing, but better than most of what I've seen come out of an LLM. --------------- Pre-empting the "how can you tell", here's some of the tells. > The API is shaped after Sharp: Constantly using "shaped" and "shape" is becoming an LLM-ism, much more common than in human writing. > The constructor accepts a path, bytes,…
The other big problem with LLM documentation is that it tends to drift from the code, because agents forget to update it. Then later agents sometimes reference the documentation, sometimes reference the code, and get confused.
For agent written code I now default to no documentation and explanatory function signatures, it works better for me at least.
Re: Bun.Image
#8This looks like one of the better pieces of LLM-output documentation I've seen. It's bad technical writing, but better than most of what I've seen come out of an LLM. --------------- Pre-empting the "how can you tell", here's some of the tells. > The API is shaped after Sharp: Constantly using "shaped" and "shape" is becoming an LLM-ism, much more common than in human writing. > The constructor accepts a path, bytes,…
The other big problem with LLM documentation is that it tends to drift from the code, because agents forget to update it. Then later agents sometimes reference the documentation, sometimes reference the code, and get confused. For agent written code I now default to no documentation and explanatory function signatures, it works better for me at least.
[flagged]
Re: Bun.Image
#9Glad to see that Bun is doing something that Java has been doing since 1998.
Pretty sure Java didn’t slop code its APIs in 1998.
Re: Bun.Image
#10This looks like one of the better pieces of LLM-output documentation I've seen. It's bad technical writing, but better than most of what I've seen come out of an LLM. --------------- Pre-empting the "how can you tell", here's some of the tells. > The API is shaped after Sharp: Constantly using "shaped" and "shape" is becoming an LLM-ism, much more common than in human writing. > The constructor accepts a path, bytes,…
The other big problem with LLM documentation is that it tends to drift from the code, because agents forget to update it. Then later agents sometimes reference the documentation, sometimes reference the code, and get confused. For agent written code I now default to no documentation and explanatory function signatures, it works better for me at least.
Humans also tend to forget to update documentation and the same confusion happens. I don't think it's really a new problem.