5 ms·

Wow. This is going to be interesting to follow. There's absolutely no way any of this code was reviewed, but maybe we're in a post-human world now where you can

Wow. This is going to be interesting to follow. There's absolutely no way any of this code was reviewed, but maybe we're in a post-human world now where you can trust the models to write and review the code. This is like Gastown but on a higher profile project. Will be fascinating to see how this project is able to add new features going forward (or even _if_ it will be able to). Does anyone know how exactly Bun is used by Anthropic? Is it a part of Claude Code? I'm more than slightly worried about using Bun going forward myself, but I'm not sure to what extent that applies to using Claude as well.

rafram 5mo ago
> you can trust the models to write and review the code You definitely cannot!
- operatingthetan 5mo ago
  Reminds me of going on linkedin and seeing all these sales and product people who are talking big game about engineering now. Well yeah they are definitely producing something but not sure I'd call it "engineering."
- gmueckl 5mo ago
  You can trust them to flag some things during review that may or may not be relevant. But just like with human review and unit testing, you cannot guarantee the absence of bugs after an LLM code review. It's just another set of (virtual) eyeballs.
  - rafram 5mo ago
    I trust them somewhat to flag bugs. I don't trust them to produce clean, maintainable code - even code maintainable by the LLM itself. Any sufficiently complex LLM changeset can be assumed to contain duplicated logic, method scope creep, and code changes without accompanying documentation changes that the model often will not catch no matter how many rounds of review you run. If those issues make it into a commit, the next time you ask the LLM to update some of the functionality that it introduced earlier, bugs will creep in.
    - solidasparagus 5mo ago
      I find that documentation creep is wildly better in AI coded environments than human ones. You can deterministic force a documentation sync process on every PR, documentation rot has gotten way better.
torben-friis 5mo ago
Does anyone know how exactly Bun is used by Anthropic? Is it a part of Claude Code? It seems to be used by anthropic as a way to shift the discussion window into it being acceptable that you yolomerge millions of lines.
- darknoon 5mo ago
  the `claude` binary is essentially a packed copy of bun + the js code, so this will replace the native runtime part of claude code.
bhaak 5mo ago
It passed all the tests. If you can't trust your test suite to catch an automatic language translation you shouldn't trust it at all. :)
- debugnik 5mo ago
  It also modified many of the tests to make them pass in mischievous ways. You can't trust a test suite to catch regressions if the new version doesn't use the same test suite.
  - davidatbu 5mo ago
    Do you have some examples?
    - davidatbu 5mo ago
      Ah, I just learnt that you don't. Jarred's comment saying exactly that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133806
      - debugnik 5mo ago
        I'll actually concede that, on a slower skim, some changes to the test suite and fixtures that first seemed suspicious to me indeed align with what those tests were doing previously, and I wish I could retract that comment. I still think it's not such an impressive test suite as it's being claimed; which, if this actually works out, should say more about Claude's skill than the people driving it.
        davidatbu 5mo ago
        Gotcha. I'm genuinely curious: by "impressive", are you referring to coverage? I'd be grateful if you could say a few words about it could be more impressive (e.g, if you indeed meant to talk about coverage, say what functionality/edge cases aren't covered as of now)
SwellJoe 5mo ago
How's the test suite?

rafram 5mo ago

> you can trust the models to write and review the code You definitely cannot!

operatingthetan 5mo ago
Reminds me of going on linkedin and seeing all these sales and product people who are talking big game about engineering now. Well yeah they are definitely producing something but not sure I'd call it "engineering."
gmueckl 5mo ago
You can trust them to flag some things during review that may or may not be relevant. But just like with human review and unit testing, you cannot guarantee the absence of bugs after an LLM code review. It's just another set of (virtual) eyeballs.
- rafram 5mo ago
  I trust them somewhat to flag bugs. I don't trust them to produce clean, maintainable code - even code maintainable by the LLM itself. Any sufficiently complex LLM changeset can be assumed to contain duplicated logic, method scope creep, and code changes without accompanying documentation changes that the model often will not catch no matter how many rounds of review you run. If those issues make it into a commit, the next time you ask the LLM to update some of the functionality that it introduced earlier, bugs will creep in.
  - solidasparagus 5mo ago
    I find that documentation creep is wildly better in AI coded environments than human ones. You can deterministic force a documentation sync process on every PR, documentation rot has gotten way better.

torben-friis 5mo ago

Does anyone know how exactly Bun is used by Anthropic? Is it a part of Claude Code? It seems to be used by anthropic as a way to shift the discussion window into it being acceptable that you yolomerge millions of lines.

darknoon 5mo ago
the `claude` binary is essentially a packed copy of bun + the js code, so this will replace the native runtime part of claude code.

bhaak 5mo ago

It passed all the tests. If you can't trust your test suite to catch an automatic language translation you shouldn't trust it at all. :)

debugnik 5mo ago
It also modified many of the tests to make them pass in mischievous ways. You can't trust a test suite to catch regressions if the new version doesn't use the same test suite.
- davidatbu 5mo ago
  Do you have some examples?
  - davidatbu 5mo ago
    Ah, I just learnt that you don't. Jarred's comment saying exactly that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133806
    - debugnik 5mo ago
      I'll actually concede that, on a slower skim, some changes to the test suite and fixtures that first seemed suspicious to me indeed align with what those tests were doing previously, and I wish I could retract that comment. I still think it's not such an impressive test suite as it's being claimed; which, if this actually works out, should say more about Claude's skill than the people driving it.
      - davidatbu 5mo ago
        Gotcha. I'm genuinely curious: by "impressive", are you referring to coverage? I'd be grateful if you could say a few words about it could be more impressive (e.g, if you indeed meant to talk about coverage, say what functionality/edge cases aren't covered as of now)

SwellJoe 5mo ago

How's the test suite?