3 ms·
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 wa
by 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 agoPerhaps. 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 agoEveryone 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 agoIf 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 agoYou 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.