4 ms·

Sure I’ll bite the obvious bait, why not. > Absolute crickets from the "there's no way LLM's can rewrite Bun to Rust this quickly, it's going to be buggy, it's

Sure I’ll bite the obvious bait, why not. > Absolute crickets from the "there's no way LLM's can rewrite Bun to Rust this quickly, it's going to be buggy, it's marketing" crowd > Comments here 3 months ago are quite something: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48132488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48132488 Did you… perhaps read the entire comment you just posted? The crowd that was saying “no way they did that in 11 days” sure seems correct given that the release today is 3 months later. 3 months is longer than 11 days. Significantly so, in fact.

tock 1mo ago
1.4 also adds a lot of features so its more than a port. Plus Claude Code has been using the rust port since atleast July 19. So its definitely less than 3 months.
- solid_fuel 1mo ago
  Or, more likely, the amount of crappy auto generated code and “features” they crammed into this release resulted in so many bugs that a “simple rewrite” would up being 3 months of whack-a-mole with the issues they created. That’s the predictable result from the lack of engineering discipline involved here.
  - tock 1mo ago
    Claude Code has millions of users and like I said had been using the 1.4 canary a lot earlier than 3 months. But even 3 months is an absurdly impressive timeline for this. And its even more insane to think LLMs are only going to get better. Jeez.
pohl 1mo ago
Be honest, though: had they shipped earlier—which they probably could have safely done—they would have been called “reckless” by the detractors. There was no way to make them happy here.
- solid_fuel 1mo ago
  Perhaps. But they didn’t, instead they spent months claiming it was done, while maybe adding a bunch of new features (why? Get the base rewrite out first) which only made them look worse.
  - pohl 1mo ago
    Everyone was saying they shouldn’t just accept the LLM’s output without cautious review. Seems they took the time to make sure it was a good release. Not sure why that doesn’t sound like a valid reason not to rush to you.
    - solid_fuel 1mo ago
      If they had used the time to actually review the code I would agree! But it sure seems like they used the time instead to play whack-a-mole on bugs and cram in about 50 new, completely unrelated features. That implies they still have not actually reviewed the code they are shipping.
      - pohl 1mo ago
        You don’t know that. Also, fixing bugs is good.
        solid_fuel 1mo ago
        > You don’t know that. We’re literally on a thread discussing the release notes, which are filled with new features. > Also, fixing bugs is good. Yes, fixing bugs is good. The Bun team should have spent time on that in the first place, instead of creating a bunch more with this marketing fueled rewrite.
nsonha 1mo ago
Not sure why people try so hard to interpret this in such a hostile way. It's very obvious that the 11 days were for the faithful, mechanical, agentic port, and then they followed up by commanding refactoring. The comments about the faithful port not being idiomatic rust are annoying

tock 1mo ago

1.4 also adds a lot of features so its more than a port. Plus Claude Code has been using the rust port since atleast July 19. So its definitely less than 3 months.

solid_fuel 1mo ago
Or, more likely, the amount of crappy auto generated code and “features” they crammed into this release resulted in so many bugs that a “simple rewrite” would up being 3 months of whack-a-mole with the issues they created. That’s the predictable result from the lack of engineering discipline involved here.
- tock 1mo ago
  Claude Code has millions of users and like I said had been using the 1.4 canary a lot earlier than 3 months. But even 3 months is an absurdly impressive timeline for this. And its even more insane to think LLMs are only going to get better. Jeez.

pohl 1mo ago

Be honest, though: had they shipped earlier—which they probably could have safely done—they would have been called “reckless” by the detractors. There was no way to make them happy here.

solid_fuel 1mo ago
Perhaps. But they didn’t, instead they spent months claiming it was done, while maybe adding a bunch of new features (why? Get the base rewrite out first) which only made them look worse.
- pohl 1mo ago
  Everyone was saying they shouldn’t just accept the LLM’s output without cautious review. Seems they took the time to make sure it was a good release. Not sure why that doesn’t sound like a valid reason not to rush to you.
  - solid_fuel 1mo ago
    If they had used the time to actually review the code I would agree! But it sure seems like they used the time instead to play whack-a-mole on bugs and cram in about 50 new, completely unrelated features. That implies they still have not actually reviewed the code they are shipping.
    - pohl 1mo ago
      You don’t know that. Also, fixing bugs is good.
      - solid_fuel 1mo ago
        > You don’t know that. We’re literally on a thread discussing the release notes, which are filled with new features. > Also, fixing bugs is good. Yes, fixing bugs is good. The Bun team should have spent time on that in the first place, instead of creating a bunch more with this marketing fueled rewrite.

nsonha 1mo ago

Not sure why people try so hard to interpret this in such a hostile way. It's very obvious that the 11 days were for the faithful, mechanical, agentic port, and then they followed up by commanding refactoring. The comments about the faithful port not being idiomatic rust are annoying