4 ms·

It’s made absolutely no negative difference, as we’ve seen in the real world in the last 60 days since the merge. I feel weird having to defend reality; realit

• well_ackshually 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  • CrimsonRain 3mo ago
    What a load of bs. > Inevitable collapse According to who? You? The well ackshually guy? > Low in trust before acquisition Cite your sources. > Unreleased version v140 is the canary version which has been available for a long time. https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/releases/tag/canary https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/releases/tag/canary > Not open source anymore Who died and made you the dictator of open source? Your post is just a bunch of opinions and lies and speculation wrapped as facts.
    • embedding-shape 3mo ago
      > v140 is the canary version which has been available for a long time. https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/releases/tag/canary https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/releases/tag/canary What is actually going on with that tag? It has files uploaded in Jul 29, 2024 and files uploaded "6 hours ago" (some hours after Simon first published his blog post). Do they not do proper releases with immutable tags and instead use one tag kind of like a git branch that mutates and changes over time?
      • simonw 3mo ago
        Yeah, it looks like they constantly repoint the "canary" tag at whatever they think should be the new canary release. I don't like that, personally. I think the project would be easier to reason about if they shipped alpha versions instead.
• jasode 3mo ago
  >Literally who cares what language a JS toolset is written in? Maybe you're being coy by asking a rhetorical question you already know the answer to but I'll answer as if you asked sincerely... There are 2 different groups interacting with software products: (1) end-users : this is where the "Who cares what language it's written in?!?" is usually applicable. E.g. The finance guys using MS Excel don't care whether it's written in assembly, BASIC, or C Language. (2) code contributors and/or programming language enthusiasts who see other projects as "validation" of the whatever language they've invested in: these people definitely care. For all the decades that computer languages have been debated, Group (2) will always discuss projects language choices. E.g. reddit.com switching from Lisp to Python, the Linux kernel fiercely debating future Rust contributions , the Typescript compiler switching from Javascript to Go, Bun switching from Zig to Rust, etc. People try to lecture others in Group 2 about "don't make a programming language your identity" ... but people are human and they can't look at all the above language choices as totally detached observers. They like to talk about it! If one is a Zig coder that contributed to the previous Bun Zig codebase, we can't expect them to be neutral observers.
  • estearum 3mo ago
    I think you're missing group 3, which is the "assume bad faith and/or bad outcome from any possible change to anything, and especially changes to open source projects that can be interpreted as exogenous, e.g. from an acquirer, and especially if that acquirer is a gigantic commercial entity." There are not nearly enough disenfranchised Bun-on-Zig contributors to make a dent in this conversation. There are lots of Group 3s in every similar convo, for any combination of technology, project, and acquirer you can name.
    • atonse 3mo ago
      I think most of the naysayers are in group 3 because there’s a lot of anger but never a single link to a blog post or analysis done by anyone to demonstrate a regression. not one. There are some that analyzed the quality of the initial rust code and use of unsafe but Claude has been chewing through those as I understand.
• re-thc 3mo ago
  > that this made bun worse in any measurable way Issues on GitHub was mass closed claiming zig is no longer relevant without fixing the real issues.
  • atonse 3mo ago
    Whole classes of bugs WERE fixed by moving to rust. wouldn’t that result in mass closures of classes of bugs that were no longer relevant in rust? What would you prefer?
    • re-thc 3mo ago
      I would prefer they confirm before closing. It's AI / bot anyway. Instead it's just mass keyword zig = close. The bug can still exist post-port. None of it got "fact-checked". In fact a lot of "feature requests" like npm compatibility related or missing specs etc ALL also got closed for being "zig" because reproduction and suggested solution were of course zig. Again doesn't mean it got "auto fixed".
    • jdiff 3mo ago
      Whole classes of bugs are fixed by safe rust. This is not safe rust. As a line-by-line translation with unsafe forced anywhere necessary to make it compile, this should result in no classes of bugs fixed by moving to rust.
• layer8 3mo ago
  > who cares what language a JS toolset is written in? Anthropic, apparently, not the least because they blanket-closed all issues submitted before the rewrite. If the language were irrelevant, it shouldn’t matter for the existing unfixed issues.
  • skybrian 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • doctorpangloss 3mo ago
    imagine being the leadership of the one of most valuable US private companies in the world. then you have to make something called a "pull request" that gets "reviewed" by someone named "Jarred" to make improvements to your stuff. do you see how that is untenable? the language is relevant for political not technical reasons. you could say, blanket closing the Issues, getting rid of this thing called Jarred from your stack, etc., is really an attack on the GitHub and the GitHub Agitator Lifestyles, which is why so many commenters on Hacker News actually care.
  • pronik 3mo ago
    > blanket-closed all issues submitted before the rewrite You'll need a citation for that. While I'm still not sure whether Claude Code's issue tracker is worth much (Anthropic doesn't seem to engage with individual issues a while lot), it still has 5k+ open issues ranging back to March 2025. Bun also still has all of its Zig-timeline issues, all 5k+ of them. So what's this about?
• vermilingua 3mo ago
  Except that it hasn’t yet hit the real world, the live release is still 1.13.4, the last Zig version. Anthropic does not operate in the real world.
  • Tadpole9181 3mo ago
    The canary build has been Rust for over a month, available to anyone. In that time it has been used in production for Claude Code and Prisma Compute.
    • atonse 3mo ago
      Not sure why this purely factual post got downvoted. Upvoted it.
    • sorenbs 3mo ago
      We found the Rust based canary version to solve a number of memory leaks that we were struggling with in the Zig based 1.3. One of our engineers wrote up the details here: https://www.prisma.io/blog/bun-rust-rewrite-prisma-compute https://www.prisma.io/blog/bun-rust-rewrite-prisma-compute
• bbg2401 3mo ago
  The crux is: > What is the governance structure for Bun by the way? Couldn't find any documents/explanations about how it's supposed to work. I'm guessing it's essentially just "Anthropic decides what gets done and accepted" today? And this is a valid question. You are not "defending reality" by refusing to listen to it. In summary and based solely on my understanding: - Jared misled people about the intentions of the migration. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's certainly worthy of criticism. - Jared has commented before about locking out human contributors from open source projects. Whether he was making a larger point is irrelevant as his comment stands on its own. - Other Bun contributors, past and future, outside of those employed by Anthropic, did not and likely will not have equal access to the model Jared used for the rewrite. Jared, working in the public Bun repository, used tooling not available to his community to experiment with a signficant migration. He dismissed all concerns and told people it's just a bit of fun, and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of the controversy would have been avoided were the experiment done in private. None of this is a big scandal but questions about the project are entirely justified.
  • cube00 3mo ago
    > I'm guessing it's essentially just "Anthropic decides what gets done and accepted" today? Similar to the Claude Code 60s timeout incident [1] it could just be "Jarade decides what gets done and accepted" [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48949942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48949942
  • Grombobulous 3mo ago
    Sometimes the questions aren't justified, though, like when someone else’s project is someone else’s project. It seems like when some folks see “open source” they think the project maintainers owe them something. An open source MIT license of the source code is very different from being the original copyright holder.
• jgalt212 3mo ago
  > It’s made absolutely no negative difference, as we’ve seen in the real world in the last 60 days since the merge. This is even more interesting given that prewar Bun was not a well respected code base. This matters if the code was bad, were the tests bad / not comprehensive as well? If so, the translation to rust whose sole / primary target was test-passing will have a fair amount of undocumented bugs in it. > poster child for Zig programming language actually being the prime example of How Not To Write Zig Code https://andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.html https://andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.ht...
  • NewsaHackO 3mo ago
    Did he say this opinion before the rewrite, or when he was taking tens of thousands of Bun's money per month?
• zzzeek 3mo ago
  this whole AI era has put the topic of "do we believe actual reality, or what we hoped/assumed/continue to insist would be reality" front and center. Every discussion is like this these days.
• bmitc 3mo ago
  The outrage was more how the rewrite was communicated and defended, which was objectively poor.
  • pronik 3mo ago
    Which was completely bonkers -- it happened completely in the open, people were just outraged that something like this happens without asking them and not on a schedule they perceive as adequate. Most of them haven't really grasped what was happening and why. Many still don't.
    • bmitc 3mo ago
      It wasn't out in the open. It was never announced or discussed ahead of time. It was just done because the company who purchased Bun wanted it done, and they only communicated it was happening once they started. I don't consider the following comment to be good, honest, and open communication: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016880#48019226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016880#48019226
      • simonw 3mo ago
        What was dishonest about that comment? > There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely. ... and a few days later he decided that the code wouldn't get thrown out. That doesn't make the comment itself dishonest, he didn't have a crystal ball. You can absolutely argue that the rewrite was not communicated clearly once they committed to it, but I don't think the comment you linked to there stands as evidence of poor communication at the time it was written.
        • bmitc 3mo ago
          He knew he wasn't going to throw out the code when he made that comment.
          • simonw 3mo ago
• queenkjuul 3mo ago
  >It’s made absolutely no negative difference, as we’ve seen in the real world in the last 60 days since the merge. The rust code is not yet in a stable release, and CC only switched to it in the latest version, so there's not been 60 days of widespread battle testing yet, so i don't see how we could possibly say it will have no negative difference. It hasn't, because nobody is using it yet. It still might. >Literally who cares what language a JS toolset is written in? I don't care what language it's in, but i do care how it is written and maintained. I'm not going to trust my projects to a runtime that was written by an LLM in two weeks with practically no human review