I am not your target with this question (I don't write Zig) but there is a spectrum of LLM usage for coding. It is possible to use LLMs extensively but almost never ship LLM generated code, except for tiny trivial functions. One can use them for ideation, quick research, or prototypes/starting places, and then build on that. That is how I use them, anyway

Culturally I see pure vibe coders as intersecting more with entrepreneurfluencer types who are non-technical but trying to extend their capabilities. Most technical folks I know are fairly disillusioned with pure vibe coding, but that's my corner of the world, YMMV

Handmade Cities founder here.

We never associated with Bun other than extending an invitation to rent a job booth at a conference: this was years ago when I had a Twitter account, so it's fair if Jarred doesn't remember.

If Handmade Cities had the opportunity to collaborate with Bun today, we would not take it, even prior to this acquisition. HMC wants to level up systems while remaining performant, snappy and buttery smooth. Notable examples include File Pilot [0] or my own Terminal Click (still early days) [1], both coming from bootstrapped indie devs.

I'll finish with a quote from a blog post [2]:

> Serious Handmade projects, like my own Terminal Click, don’t gain from AI. It does help at the margins: I’ve delegated website work since last year, and I enjoy seamless CI/CD for my builds. This is meaningful. However, it fails at novel problems and isn’t practical for my systems programming work.

All that said, I congratulate Bun even as we disagree on philosophy. I imagine it's no small feat getting acquired!

[0] https://filepilot.tech

[1] https://terminal.click

[2] https://handmadecities.com/news/summer-update-2025/

> I had a vague idea that "Zig people" were generally "Software You Can Love" or "Handmade Software Movement" types, about small programs, exquisitely hand-written, etc, etc.

I feel like an important step for a language is when people outside of the mainline language culture start using it in anger. In that respect, Zig has very much "made it."

That said, if I were to put on my cynical hat, I do wonder how much of that Anthropic money will be donated to the Zig Software Foundation itself. After all, throwing money at maintaining and promoting the language that powers a critical part of their infrastructure seems like a mutually beneficial arrangement.

> I had a vague idea that "Zig people" were generally "Software You Can Love" or "Handmade Software Movement" types, about small programs, exquisitely hand-written, etc, etc.

In my experience, the extreme anti-LLM people and extreme pro-vibecoding people are a vocal online minority.

If you get away from the internet yelling match, the typical use case for LLMs is in the middle. Experienced developers use them for some small tasks and also write their own code. They know when to switch between modes and how to make the most of LLMs without deferring completely to their output.

Most of all: They don't go around yelling about their LLM use (or anti-use) because they're not interesting in the online LLM wars. They just want to build things with the tools available.

No. Anthropic need Bun to be healthy because they use it for Claude Code.

Probably not. When we add new APIs in Bun, we generally base the interface off of popular existing packages. The bar is very high for a runtime to include libraries because the expectation is to support those APIs ~forever. And I can’t think of popular existing JS libraries for these things.

No idea about his feelings but believing that they will be dominant wouldn't have to be the reason he chose them. I could easily imagine that someone would decide based on (1) they offered enough money and (2) values alignment.

With Bun's existing OSS license and contribution model, all contributors retain their copyright and Bun retains the license to use those contributions. An acquisition of this kind cannot change the terms under which prior contributions were made without explicit agreement from all contributors. If Bun did switch to a CLA in the future, just like with any OSS project, that would only impact future contributions made after that CLA went into effect and it depends entirely on the terms established in that hypothetical CLA.

Acq's typically have additional stips you have to follow - they probably have new deadlines and some temporary stress for the next few months.