3 ms·

I have learned so much reading Andrew’s code and as I said in the original post: Bun would never have happened without Zig. > The post claims they were fuzzin

• nsagent 3mo ago
  Your links show you used a fuzzer, but that doesn't address the other half of Andrew's statement. Is Andrew misreporting/misremembering your conversations? EDIT: It's really telling that asking a factual clarification question is somehow downvote worthy. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but this epitomizes the reason online discussions devolve in to flame wars (even moreso than real life, though it happens more and more there as well). The answer could be as simple as we didn't use a fuzzer until recently so both are accurate. I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking. Yet somehow just asking is triggering to people.
  • mi_lk 3mo ago
    Or, did the whole Bun team indeed state the otherwise to Zig?
  • lolinder 3mo ago
    No one's obliged to respond to hearsay by trying to guess what the other party might have misheard to arrive at a false conclusion. It's enough to demonstrate that the conclusion they came to was false, and if the other party would like to defend themselves they're welcome to explain why they came to that misunderstanding.
• tel 3mo ago
  Without having any opinion on whether or not the Bun team was meaningfully fuzzing their codebase... Andrew's claim was not about whether or not they were, it was noting that the story was different between what they claimed in conversation and what they stated in this article.
• tipiirai 3mo ago
  Not sure I follow. Is "fuzzing their Zig code" somehow related to adding a Fuzzilli integration to Bun?
  • mtlynch 3mo ago
    Yes, "their" refers to Bun's code, not the Zig compiler's code. Fuzzili is a fuzzing engine for JavaScript, so integrating it into Bun means that Fuzzili is fuzzing Bun.[0] From the Bun post[1] > We fuzz Bun's runtime APIs 24/7 using Fuzzilli, the JavaScript engine fuzzer used by V8 & JavaScriptCore From Andrew Kelley's post today[2]: > The post claims they were fuzzing their Zig code, while during our calls the whole Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything. This appears to be an outright fabrication. Sumner says that the Bun team has been fuzzing Bun's Zig code. Kelley says that this is a fabrication. Sumner showed proof that the Bun team has been fuzzing Bun's Zig code. It looks like Kelley is incorrect and made an unfounded claim. The generous interpretation is that at the time Kelley and Sumner had a more collaborative relationship, Sumner was not fuzzing Bun's Zig code, but I'd expect Kelley to check if anything had changed since then before publicly accusing Sumner of lying in this week's Bun blog post. [0] https://github.com/googleprojectzero/fuzzilli https://github.com/googleprojectzero/fuzzilli [1] https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust [2] https://andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.html https://andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.ht...
    • orangeisthe 3mo ago
      Why are you not using hyperlinks and adding links citation style?
      • Philpax 3mo ago
        This is standard convention on HN for when you have more than one link. HN does not support masked links.
    • xlii 3mo ago
      AFAIU fuzzing code != fuzzing results. Through skimming it seems that integration tests were using fuzzing, but I would call it fuzzing the code itself. From "product" perspective there's no difference, but in program-compiler perspective (and e.g. raising bugs about compiler), Fuzilli isn't fuzzing. Per Wikipedia > (then...) The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, failing built-in code assertions, or potential memory leaks. As for myself, I wouldn't use term fuzzing for integration testing such the one used by Fuzilla. I always caught it dynamic testing, scenario testing and in bigger cases property based tests. Fuzzing in my mind is reserved to a low-abstraction calls. Might just be me, though.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• embedding-shape 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  • simonw 3mo ago
    You want to see him address being "a stinky manager", having "beginner energy", choosing to take VC as opposed to "a solid living via crowdfunding", or "already writing slop well before he had access to LLMs"? Those are all opinions where arguing about them isn't going to be productive. Countering the accusation of "an outright fabrication" on the other hand is worthwhile because it's a claim that can be countered. If somebody called me a liar for something that demonstrably wasn't a lie I wouldn't let that stand, either.
    • nicce 3mo ago
      > Countering the accusation of "an outright fabrication" on the other hand is worthwhile because it's a claim that can be countered. Hmm, fuzzing integration was merged 8 months ago. First found bug mentioned 3 months ago. Bun is 4 years old. I think both arguments can be true at the same time based on this evidence. It is entirely possible that for more than 3 years team has said that no fuzzing was done, and the first fuzzing was done just 3 months ago, and this information did not travel.
      • simonw 3mo ago
        If you're going to accuse someone of "an outright fabrication" it's on you to check that you're not wrong before you say that.
        • nicce 3mo ago
          I agree that ""an outright fabrication" is a bit too much. But also the claims about the fuzzing in the original blog post are kinda too misleading. Fuzzing harness is basically just coverage-guided random bytes towards Bun's JS APIs and it will not really catch anything in depth from the code. Just the most obvious from the surface. And 24/7 fuzzing is introduced likely around the same time when Rust rewrite seemed to be main focus, as then the first issues were created. Current fuzzing does not give much trust about the code stability, but indeed the fuzzing has been started and likely improves in the future if someone puts some work for the harness.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• hoppp 3mo ago
  Andrew means the zig build test --fuzz command probably the built in zig fuzzer, that's the tool that is in his scope.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • lolinder 3mo ago
    If that's what he meant that doesn't speak well for his communication in this post, because "the Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything" is a wildly different claim than "the Bun team told us they weren't using a specific tool for fuzzing".
• v3gas 3mo ago
  You're a champ, man
• ovao 3mo ago
  Note that Andrew's since removed the “outright fabrication” bit from his post. No indication of the edit itself though, which is a choice.
  • ladyanita22 3mo ago
    It is a choice indeed. Well worded.
  • abacate 3mo ago
    Original post: https://archive.is/wNLqY https://archive.is/wNLqY Updated version: https://archive.is/TpsUW https://archive.is/TpsUW
• silver_silver 3mo ago
  All of those commits except the initial integration are from after the acquisition. How do we know this wasn’t done without anyone on the call’s knowledge?
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • zamadatix 3mo ago
    Since there are multiple ways to interpret Andrew's original comment, multiple ways to interpret what his newer edit of it implies, multiple logical reasons each way could have come about, and likely multiple opinions on what the expectations from each side should be... I'm finding myself getting stuck in a loop of trying to understand how/why these considerations are important. Could you help further explain which interpretations & ways you feel this info is relevant to?
• ykurtov 3mo ago
  Dude, that PR is on 25th of November 2025 :) Few weeks before Anthropic acquired Bun.