> 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.

▲

blcknight an hour ago | parent [-]

I hear a lot of complaints about bun but nothing concrete about what broke in the migration.

You are also assuming one prompt, and then arguing against your assumptions with zero evidence. It is lazy arm chair criticism.

▲

JCTheDenthog 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

>I hear a lot of complaints about bun but nothing concrete about what broke in the migration.

Because it hasn't been released yet (at least not outside of some unstable branches). You can find some criticism of the actual slop here though: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1t4033y/buns_rewrite_...

	▲	UqWBcuFx6NV4r 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Dude, stop with “slop”. We should aim to have conversations that don’t need resort to this culturally charged BS. How about, let things stand (or fall) on their merits (or lack thereof). We don’t want or need your value judgement descriptor.