3 ms·
You don't have to claim that they're better, but making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork - and then not talking about
by Arainach 3mo ago
You don't have to claim that they're better, but making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork - and then not talking about it at all in the Rust doc (where it's apparent to anyone who's used Rust that compilation there is guaranteed to be slower) is dishonest or at least massively hypocritical.
- woodruffw 3mo agoWhere are they making a big fuss?
- Arainach 3mo agoI knew that LLMs had caused reading comprehension to tank, but I quite literally already directly answered that question - as did the original article under discussion here.
- woodruffw 3mo agoYou haven’t answered it, and I can’t find a fair reading that would lend itself to that interpretation either. You can easily correct me by quoting the part of the Bun post that you find to be “making a big fuss.” (Surely a relatively bland technical criticism of Zig - one that gets couched with praise - does not count as “a big fuss.”)
- Arainach 3mo ago> making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork Literal quote (and again, appeared in the original article as well). Forking the compiler to try to get faster compile times is a significant effort that absolutely counts as raising a fuss.
- woodruffw 3mo agoThe word “fuss” doesn’t occur in the original Bun article. I also don’t think that forking the compiler is a big fuss. Large companies do that all the time, to carry whatever patches they haven’t upstreamed yet (or can’t). It’s really not that big of a deal.
- cowsandmilk 3mo agoThe bun team made no mention of compile times in their post. The author of this post points to other work by bun that was hardly making a big fuss. It was just a Twitter post about parallelizing some things to make builds faster.