4 ms·

There was some criticism yesterday about bun being stable using a language (zig) that isn't considered stable. Do you care to comment about it? Ref: https://ne

by dudus 3y ago

There was some criticism yesterday about bun being stable using a language (zig) that isn't considered stable. Do you care to comment about it? Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37422894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37422894

solatic 3y ago
Zig isn't an interpreted language; once the code is compiled, the produced artifact doesn't change. Stability doesn't really play a factor there. Sure, the instability of Zig may increase the maintenance costs for Jarred, to use updated versions of Zig. But this has no effect on the features that Bun provides. The risk that a change to Zig would be so consequential that they would actually prevent Jarred from continuing to work on Bun, or would otherwise force Jarred to fork Zig, that risk is so low as to be inconsequential. (disclaimer: not associated with either bun or zig, the above are pure opinions)
- zengid 3y ago
  Not OP but I think they meant Zig isn't 1.0 and therefore could be considered "not ready for prod". I'm not claiming anything about Zig; I can only hope that the Bun folks have done their due diligence and ran it through fuzzing/ASAN/etc before making the 1.0 stamp of approval.
  - albedoa 3y ago
    That's the point being addressed by the comment you are responding to.
- swyx 3y ago
  also stability is more of a statement about api design than internals
- kaba0 3y ago
  That in itself is no good argument -- it surely has some bug, and if, say, zig changes in the meanwhile and it can no longer compile the previous code then it can be problematic from a maintenance POV. With that said, it is probably fine to use for most ordinary apps, but I wouldn't yet build a bank infrastructure on top for example.
mrinterweb 3y ago
There was a FUD theme with some of the "zig isn't stable (>=1.0) so how can I trust bun" threads. So long as bun is stable, does it matter that zig is not 1.0 for the developer using bun? So long as zig is reliable enough for the developers of bun, I don't see the concern.

by dudus 3y ago

solatic 3y ago

Zig isn't an interpreted language; once the code is compiled, the produced artifact doesn't change. Stability doesn't really play a factor there. Sure, the instability of Zig may increase the maintenance costs for Jarred, to use updated versions of Zig. But this has no effect on the features that Bun provides. The risk that a change to Zig would be so consequential that they would actually prevent Jarred from continuing to work on Bun, or would otherwise force Jarred to fork Zig, that risk is so low as to be inconsequential. (disclaimer: not associated with either bun or zig, the above are pure opinions)

zengid 3y ago
Not OP but I think they meant Zig isn't 1.0 and therefore could be considered "not ready for prod". I'm not claiming anything about Zig; I can only hope that the Bun folks have done their due diligence and ran it through fuzzing/ASAN/etc before making the 1.0 stamp of approval.
- albedoa 3y ago
  That's the point being addressed by the comment you are responding to.
swyx 3y ago
also stability is more of a statement about api design than internals
kaba0 3y ago
That in itself is no good argument -- it surely has some bug, and if, say, zig changes in the meanwhile and it can no longer compile the previous code then it can be problematic from a maintenance POV. With that said, it is probably fine to use for most ordinary apps, but I wouldn't yet build a bank infrastructure on top for example.

mrinterweb 3y ago

There was a FUD theme with some of the "zig isn't stable (>=1.0) so how can I trust bun" threads. So long as bun is stable, does it matter that zig is not 1.0 for the developer using bun? So long as zig is reliable enough for the developers of bun, I don't see the concern.