3 ms·

"Even it that'd be the best code and design in the world, I won't use it. I don't trust it." Nothing about this sentence makes sense. What don't you trust abou

by jhack 3mo ago

"Even it that'd be the best code and design in the world, I won't use it. I don't trust it." Nothing about this sentence makes sense. What don't you trust about code you can see and audit yourself? What's untrustworthy about "the best code and design in the world"?

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 3mo ago
I do not agree with OP but to not understand “i don’t have the knowledge and/or resources to audit/review a language port of an entire JS runtime, but I still understand that a big-bang language port is something to be cautious of” is almost wilful tonedeafness
unknownfuture 3mo ago
It's called "mileage". This new codebase doesn't have any. Who knows what gremlins lurk in some of its darker corners.
- Jarred 3mo ago
  > new codebase doesn’t have any Claude Code & Prisma use it as of last week.
  - marshray 3mo ago
    That comment had me reaching for the skull emoji.
  - vips7L 3mo ago
    Claude is riddled with bugs. That doesn’t inspire confidence.
  - dijksterhuis 3mo ago
    original comment: >> new codebase doesn’t have any > No longer accurate. As of last week, Claude Code (an incredibly popular CLI tool) runs on Bun’s Rust rewrite.
cmeacham98 3mo ago
I don't have the time to audit all the code in a JavaScript runtime myself, so I am forced to make assumptions about the quality of the code based on my trust of the authors. Additionally, even if the code is good today, I am trusting their process will produce good code tomorrow (as migrating to/from bun has a non-trivial cost). A single person approving the code of an LLM is not such a process with today's technology.
- TalkingCodeMonk 3mo ago
  jhack's perspetive is something that is all too common in tech. The implication that if code is open source the owners and maintainers don't owe consumers anything because "you can always fork or build it yourself"... as if that were ever possible for the average user, or in a digital world where anything you do with a computer depends on endless recursive sub-dependencies. It's analogous to saying "it's your fault because you didn't read the T&C's", when all the T&C's you've implicitly agreed to already would take more than a human lifetime to read and understand. That is not a reasonable implication or expectation for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time; therefore it is logically corrupt, and should not be entertained. This is ofcourse a fair point of view for 1-few person codebases built for fun, or to solve their own problems, open sourced out of the kindness of their hearts, but when the open source code is built or maintained as part of a job function (receiving a paycheck) &/or to generate profit (either directly or indirectly to influence standards, gain market share, etc) the open-sourcing is more of a means to build trust and becon attention or adoption in the age of relentless enshittification. Open sourcing should not be an accepted path for profit seeking orgs or individuals to exploit and screw over consumers, as though they are eternal beta testers whose trust and dependence are worthless externalities. It also completely ignores the time and effort consumers must invest themselves to learn your product, workaround any errors, and build it into their workflow. That is arguably worth significantly more than whatever fee they could pay you for your code.
  - Eufrat 3mo ago
    I still really don’t understand what is so entitled about asking for a level of base empathy and care from maintainers. People now yell at you that their only obligation is whatever is spelled out in the license they attached to the code. I think this is the same place where the logic of Code = Law comes from. People who think that you can encode the legal/judicial system into a set of axioms. This is not how the law works nor is it how it is taught and asserting this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human systems. It is incredibly destructive when people start applying maths as ground rules for human interaction. People do not live in black/white. We live in grey. I am certainly not old enough to have experienced it, but I would venture a guess that the reason the BSD/MIT licenses originally existed was so that the universities had a CYA clause. I think you can see this erosion from a group of people sharing software in academic and hobbyist circles into weird legal absolutism as software becomes more of a business. For instance, Bill Gates’ famous letter to hobbyists or the PKZIP fiasco.
nozzlegear 3mo ago
How can you trust that they won't just rug pull all of the code you've hand-audited when they merge some 1800 file PR written by an LLM? Even if you decide to hold off on any security updates or minor bumps until you can hand audit again, what's the point? You could just go back to Node where they aren't engaging in a modern day Ship of Theseus every other week.
diatone 3mo ago
First word of second sentence: > Stability ie: lack of volatility, ie: integrity, ie: I know it does what it says and don’t have to second guess that.
pier25 3mo ago
It's not about the code or the use of AI. It's about the governance of the Bun project. Nobody knows if the Rust AI rewrite was a good decision from a technical pov. We do know it was a unilateral and drastic decision taken behind closed doors and imposed onto all Bun users. There was a poll on r/bun where only about 30% of users said they were going to use the Rust port. https://www.reddit.com/r/bun/comments/1u3j4d7/are_you_going_to_use_the_rust_port_of_bun/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bun/comments/1u3j4d7/are_you_going_... Even worse, users on the Zig version have been pretty much abandoned. Any future bug fixes, security patches, etc will only be released in the Rust version.

by jhack 3mo ago

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 3mo ago

I do not agree with OP but to not understand “i don’t have the knowledge and/or resources to audit/review a language port of an entire JS runtime, but I still understand that a big-bang language port is something to be cautious of” is almost wilful tonedeafness

unknownfuture 3mo ago

It's called "mileage". This new codebase doesn't have any. Who knows what gremlins lurk in some of its darker corners.

Jarred 3mo ago
> new codebase doesn’t have any Claude Code & Prisma use it as of last week.
- marshray 3mo ago
  That comment had me reaching for the skull emoji.
- vips7L 3mo ago
  Claude is riddled with bugs. That doesn’t inspire confidence.
- dijksterhuis 3mo ago
  original comment: >> new codebase doesn’t have any > No longer accurate. As of last week, Claude Code (an incredibly popular CLI tool) runs on Bun’s Rust rewrite.

cmeacham98 3mo ago

I don't have the time to audit all the code in a JavaScript runtime myself, so I am forced to make assumptions about the quality of the code based on my trust of the authors. Additionally, even if the code is good today, I am trusting their process will produce good code tomorrow (as migrating to/from bun has a non-trivial cost). A single person approving the code of an LLM is not such a process with today's technology.

TalkingCodeMonk 3mo ago
jhack's perspetive is something that is all too common in tech. The implication that if code is open source the owners and maintainers don't owe consumers anything because "you can always fork or build it yourself"... as if that were ever possible for the average user, or in a digital world where anything you do with a computer depends on endless recursive sub-dependencies. It's analogous to saying "it's your fault because you didn't read the T&C's", when all the T&C's you've implicitly agreed to already would take more than a human lifetime to read and understand. That is not a reasonable implication or expectation for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time; therefore it is logically corrupt, and should not be entertained. This is ofcourse a fair point of view for 1-few person codebases built for fun, or to solve their own problems, open sourced out of the kindness of their hearts, but when the open source code is built or maintained as part of a job function (receiving a paycheck) &/or to generate profit (either directly or indirectly to influence standards, gain market share, etc) the open-sourcing is more of a means to build trust and becon attention or adoption in the age of relentless enshittification. Open sourcing should not be an accepted path for profit seeking orgs or individuals to exploit and screw over consumers, as though they are eternal beta testers whose trust and dependence are worthless externalities. It also completely ignores the time and effort consumers must invest themselves to learn your product, workaround any errors, and build it into their workflow. That is arguably worth significantly more than whatever fee they could pay you for your code.
- Eufrat 3mo ago
  I still really don’t understand what is so entitled about asking for a level of base empathy and care from maintainers. People now yell at you that their only obligation is whatever is spelled out in the license they attached to the code. I think this is the same place where the logic of Code = Law comes from. People who think that you can encode the legal/judicial system into a set of axioms. This is not how the law works nor is it how it is taught and asserting this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human systems. It is incredibly destructive when people start applying maths as ground rules for human interaction. People do not live in black/white. We live in grey. I am certainly not old enough to have experienced it, but I would venture a guess that the reason the BSD/MIT licenses originally existed was so that the universities had a CYA clause. I think you can see this erosion from a group of people sharing software in academic and hobbyist circles into weird legal absolutism as software becomes more of a business. For instance, Bill Gates’ famous letter to hobbyists or the PKZIP fiasco.

nozzlegear 3mo ago

How can you trust that they won't just rug pull all of the code you've hand-audited when they merge some 1800 file PR written by an LLM? Even if you decide to hold off on any security updates or minor bumps until you can hand audit again, what's the point? You could just go back to Node where they aren't engaging in a modern day Ship of Theseus every other week.

diatone 3mo ago

First word of second sentence: > Stability ie: lack of volatility, ie: integrity, ie: I know it does what it says and don’t have to second guess that.

pier25 3mo ago

It's not about the code or the use of AI. It's about the governance of the Bun project. Nobody knows if the Rust AI rewrite was a good decision from a technical pov. We do know it was a unilateral and drastic decision taken behind closed doors and imposed onto all Bun users. There was a poll on r/bun where only about 30% of users said they were going to use the Rust port. https://www.reddit.com/r/bun/comments/1u3j4d7/are_you_going_to_use_the_rust_port_of_bun/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bun/comments/1u3j4d7/are_you_going_... Even worse, users on the Zig version have been pretty much abandoned. Any future bug fixes, security patches, etc will only be released in the Rust version.