I wonder if I'm the only one for whom the bun project vanished completely.

In software code is only part of the package. Stability and trust are big part of it, too. And for me 1800 files change PRs created by Anthropic overseen by one person is not necessarily adding to the package.

Even it that'd be the best code and design in the world, I won't use it. I don't trust it.

▲

egorfine 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I have prepared our company software for migration back to node.

I would like to read the promised Jarred's blog post (if it ever comes out) before pulling the plug though.

▲

re-thc 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And for me 1800 files change PRs created by Anthropic overseen by one person is not necessarily adding to the package.

Bun is mostly AI written and AI reviewed at this point (all automated).

The 1-person is luxury.

▲

sibeliuss 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is that you need to twist the cube

▲

monkaiju 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Im here with ya :)

▲

sergiotapia 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

might as well use openclaw at this point. that's the same vibe I'm getting with bun. from engineering excellence and jesus this guy really sweats the details (using zig woah!) to wow this is just openclaw ai permagenerated stuff. not a fan

▲

okeuro49 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It looks like quite a lot of analysis went into the rewrite

https://bun.com/bun-unsafe-audit

If the tests pass, then why not accept the rewrite?

An interesting article of Prisma using the rewrite:

https://www.prisma.io/blog/bun-rust-rewrite-prisma-compute

▲

zarzavat 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Just think about what "tests pass" means for a rewrite. If you rewrite from language A to language B then any unit tests have to be rewritten during the rewrite.

So either "tests pass" does not include unit tests or unit tests were rewritten probably by the same AI that is doing the rewrite!

▲

JCTheDenthog 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given that even the unsafe audit article appears to be written by AI that doesn't seem like much thought to me.

	▲	applfanboysbgon 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It explicitly says "AI-generated" at the top, so there's no doubt about it.

▲

applfanboysbgon 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> quite a lot of analysis went into the rewrite

Literally just prompted for an LLM to review it and asked for a fancy presentation. That is not "quite a lot of analysis". That is anything but.

> If the tests pass, then why not accept the rewrite?

Because (1) tests passing are absolutely not a guarantee that no regressions were introduced in a change, and (2) even if they were, those tests are the result of thousands of hours of human labour, which is all well and good for the codebase as it currently exists, but who is going to be writing the tests for the 1m loc repo of unread code in the future? Unless you've proven that specifically LLM-generated tests can prevent all possible regressions, you're condemning the future of the project because nobody will be able to continue writing robust tests.

▲

theturtletalks 2 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]