| ▲ | afavour a day ago |
| The objection isn’t to the language. It’s to Claude using a version of Bun that is not available to us. We don’t know what’s actually in it. |
|
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why is that even a thing to object to? You're talking as if you placed stock in the bizarre idea that Anthropic would close source the project and start charging for it. Stay your pitchforks. |
| |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I wouldn’t use language as strong as OPs but it is against the spirit of FOSS for a corporate owner to use a private prerelease version of their open source software. I think it’s valid to object to. If 1.4 is good enough to be used by Claude, why not us? | | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent [-] | | So you wouldn't, for example, after doing a complete ground-up rewrite, perhaps spend a few months dogfooding it to work out the worst bugs before unleashing it upon the public, thus maximizing your initial velocity by minimizing the blast radius and support requests and triage during this phase? | | |
| ▲ | realo a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's Anthropic. I am pretty sure they spent time dogfooding it to Mythos or an even more advanced model. That might even be the reason why they switched to rust. Don't worry too much. | |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > before unleashing it upon the public …but they have? Claude users are public, no? If they were dogfooding internally I’d agree with you. | | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. One single project that they control. Not thousands of other people's projects breaking, I'm sure with a ton of HN outcry over releasing "this pile of vibe coded slop" upon the poor populace. You just can't win. | | |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent [-] | | > you just can’t win You could! You could not release a “pile of vibe coded slop” onto people’s machines. There don’t even appear to be any particular advantages to Claude upgrading early. If there are no one has been made aware of it. | | |
| ▲ | ithkuil a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The irony. A company building models and tooling to automatically produce code being attacked for using automatically produced code in the very tools that allow people to automatically produce code, presumably by somebody who wants to use their tools to automatically produce code, possibly because they believe that their approach at ensuring that automatically produced code is properly reviewed by a responsible human has to be more thorough than whatever that company does because of course they were going too fast and thus it can't be good | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you know it's vibe coded slop? Have you seen the source code? | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 a day ago | parent [-] | | > How do you know it's vibe coded slop? Have you seen the source code? I believe you've just made your opponent's point for them. | | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent [-] | | Have I? I believe I've merely chased them around their moving goalposts. When it's closed source, that's nefarious because "they're not sharing" and that's against the whole spirit of open source. When it's dogfooding with a reduced audience, it's "shoving vibe coded slop on people" (this information gleaned through magical knowledge). When that unfounded assertion is called, lo and behold: It's closed source, so bad bad bad! It's called a logical fallacy for a reason. But more to your point: Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code? | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 a day ago | parent [-] | | More to the point, because you've been chasing them around goalposts, you've both accepted that the question at hand is unknowable precisely because the source isn't available. > Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code? Hell yes, and anyone who trusts one of the AI labs for anything important is insane. Whether it's their initial mass piracy and then lying about it, dealmaking with the US government, or continually shifting opt-out lines on what they are and aren't training on, they haven't earned the trust to skip the "but verify" step. Their economic incentives are too transparently aligned with ends at any costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | well_ackshually a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're running a closed source piece of software (claude code), running on an effectively closed source piece of software (bun), both of them updated daily by AI psychosis bros. At this point, charging is the least of your issues. |
|
|
| ▲ | kelnos a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It may be available to us, in the form of a git checkout of their public repository. It's true that we don't know exactly which, and whether or not there are any other changes added on, but that is the case for every single release of Claude Code that has used bun. |
| |
| ▲ | dgacmu a day ago | parent [-] | | It's probably not. I tried to extract the commit hash from the version of bun packaged in claude code. the commit hashes from previous versions resolve, whereas the commit hash for the current 1.4.0 isn't available. from strings: bun-v1.4.0
f6d0fcd24abd48061873c2f1a6fb2a67eee487b8
Upgraded.
Welcome to Bun's latest canary build!
This build does have a different way of identifying itself than earlier builds so it's possible this string isn't correct.(In contrast, earlier builds that I have locally have commit IDs that can be found in the public repo). I don't think it's particularly damning for them to vendor a canary release, mind you. |
|
|
| ▲ | jen20 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is also true of the rest of their codebase, no? |
|
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Moving the goalposts? |
| |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent [-] | | No? I think OP’s comment was very clear: > The most recent release of Bun on GitHub is currently v1.3.14 from May 12th, so that v1.4.0 version number in Claude supports them shipping a preview of a not-yet-released Bun version. > And so, the FOSS project "Bun" silently dies There’s no implication that it’s because of the switch to Rust. | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | > The objection isn’t to the language. It’s to Claude using a version of Bun that is not available to us. I was responding to your GP comment. For weeks, it was uproar over the blanket AI move to Rust and now it’s this reason. That’s why I said the goalposts are being moved. | | |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That seems illogical to me. We’re only allowed to have one objection to a project and once that’s used up we can’t air another? FWIW I don’t think people have forgotten the original objection either! | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | You can; it feels contrived and very social justice warrior/anti Anthropic (which on HN is in of itself almost a meme now). The main reason was because of the blanket AI move which I could understand. | | |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think your perception of events is pretty heavily affected by personal bias here. Objecting to a hasty AI rewrite of an entire runtime and objecting to violating the spirit of FOSS is “very social justice warrior”? What? | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | Please re read your original comment. AI rewrite is one thing and objecting to FOSS/non FOSS is a new argument, anti-Anthropic etc is moving the goal posts. The main argument was the blanket rewrite to Rust using Claude. Now, /you/ are trying to move the goalposts into an entirely different argument. Very likely it’s just anti Anthropic altogether. Like I said, a meme. Anthropic hasn’t done anything wrong but if they move a single inch then people will complain. Perhaps it is just a preview version? | | |
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent [-] | | Airing two entirely separate objections to a project is not “moving the goalposts”. The original objection still stands! You’re using a phrase you’ve heard in an inappropriate context. I’m sorry but this is a nonsensical debate. > Now, /you/ are trying to move the goalposts into an entirely different argument. You said something and I responded to it. That’s invalid too now? There can only ever be one single objection in a conversation? I’m not permitted to react to the things said? Like I said, nonsense. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People are now saying poor communication because the Bun creator was not able to see the future and didn’t immediately flag his draft rewrite as the next big thing when he started working on it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > For weeks, it was uproar over the blanket AI move to Rust and now it’s this reason. That’s why I said the goalposts are being moved. I'm just one person though, and have no problem with a move to language X, using tool Y, who cares? For "goalpost are being moved" to be valid here, you have to be able to point to someone saying one thing at one point, then same person putting a different target later. You're folding a huge group of people into one person, when that's not really accurate to do. | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48843352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48837877 | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape a day ago | parent [-] | | Your point being? None of my comments in either of those state that I'm upset about it moving from Zig to Rust? | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | I wasn’t referring to you and rather the general sentiment. Hence, goal posts have been moved again comment. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape a day ago | parent [-] | | My overall larger point (maybe poorly stated) was that unless you're engaged specifically in a 1-on-1 conversation with someone, accusing a whole community of "moving the goalpost" makes no sense, there is a whole host of arguments and points being made in different directions all the time, by different individuals. | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain a day ago | parent [-] | | I see what you are saying. My comment is rooted in the fact that different people are foregrounding different objections to Anthropic/Bun, and taken together it looks like whatever launches, someone will find a reason to be upset | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you should consider the objections by their merit rather than just being angry someone dares to criticise anthropic? | | |
| ▲ | firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Already did, a few comments up. Happy to go through specific objections again if useful. This particular comment was about thread-level dynamics, not a verdict on any one objection’s merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
