> How is that better than the Zig codebase you started with?

In contrast with the Zig codebase, you now have clear well-scoped unsafe boundaries you can iteratively fix one by one. This was not the case before.

▲

petesergeant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I would go further and say that anyone who doesn't immediately identify this either isn't thinking clearly about this, or is intentionally ignoring it. I have no horse in this race AT ALL and this is _obviously_ the advantage.

▲

cyber_kinetist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> clear well-scoped unsafe boundaries

This is not done by blindly porting Zig code 1:1 and calling it a day. You do have to make conscious decisions about code architecture to manage Unsafe code, since you need choose the right invariants for your Safe Rust code to conform inside the module (Note that unsafe pollutes the whole module containing it, not just the code inside the unsafe block!)

▲

lolinder 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

No one involved in the port proposed "blindly porting Zig code 1:1 and calling it a day". From the first blog post the creator said:

> We can gradually refactor it to reduce unsafe usage and look more like idiomatic Rust after Bun v1.4 ships.

What the rewrite does is make the unsafe code greppable, which is a necessary first step to eliminating it and one that's actually achievable rather than going straight to idiomatic.

Every successful refractor takes this form of stepwise changes that leave the behavior intact. It just so happens that in this case the first stepwise change was the implementation language.

▲

baokaola an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There's only one language that's more dangerous than C and that is unsafe Rust. I say that only half-jokingly.

	▲	Ygg2 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Good job falling for the Zig propaganda. I say that half-jokingly. EDIT: You can't be serious people. Rust unsafe is safer than C, if for nothing else, for knowing which pointers are aliasable.