> historically we didn’t have LLMs which don’t mind “unpleasant[ness]” and “heavy rework”.

I'm not quite as optimistic. "Unpleasantness" might sound like subjective disgust, but it often relates to objective criteria like complexity, that increases the surface area open to bugs in a real way. Similarly, if reworking has a non-0 chance of bugs, its gonna have some form of risk, and a major one will of course be higher.

LLMs may be capable of a lot, and they miggt change what projects people can take on, but they definitely don't write bug free code.

The bun rewrite/transpile did use some neat ideas like lots of testing and per-file translations, so hopefully they have more in their toolbox than "LLMs hopefully won't be affected by complexity or write bugs"

That's a stated goal, so nope. But releasing it before any cleanups is another story.

I'd also like to inform you that

- the current success metrics solely consist of their advertisement, my eyes looking at the code strongly suggest otherwise

- the Bun team lacks knowledge to actually make it more idiomatic: none of the Bun team has written any Rust and relying on model knowledge is already proven insufficient.

The release decision itself is presumably driven by that tbh. It's only LGTM from there when nobody knows how to review unsafe Rust.

> Nope, this is demonstrably false because Rust has its own invariants around its types and the codebase is violating a lot of them.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. In the rewrite blog post it has been stated that the Rust port landed in a place where it passes 100% of the existing test suite and does so without some of the known memory leaks of the Zig version that they were aware of and didn't know how to address.

Sure, there's no guarantee that the port didn't introduce new bugs and most likely it did, but the 1.4 version has not been released yet, so I don't think a direct comparison of a long-time "stable" version and the just-landed full rewrite is meaningfully helpful.

> "Potential memory issue" can originate in unsafe blocks and safe code that are able to alternate the input condition of these unsafe blocks. Guess what? That still counts towards 100% in this code base, hence the abomination remark.

But that just means that once you get rid of the unsafe block, you're pretty much guaranteed by the Rust compiler to be memory-safe. This means that all your potential memory landmines are annotated in the code and once you disarm them all, you're memory-safe.

I don't understand how what you're saying contradicts any of my statements.

> Not as easy as it sounds. They are like threads in a yarn ball, if there are one or two ends visible it's easier to sort them out.

Still easier than the Zig version, where all the same things you've mentioned apply, but also there's no visible indication of progress and issues are unmarked and could be pretty much anywhere.

> It's too early to declare it as anything remotely close to a win, optimistically saying.

Based on the rewrite blog post it's pretty clear that the Rust version is outperforming the Zig version by pretty much every measurable metric at this point.

I think the backlash is mostly focused on the ideological opposition to fully AI-authored 1MLOC+ PR approach they took.

For someone who is not a rust dev, would you mind giving me an example of this: "Nope, this is demonstrably false because Rust has its own invariants around its types and the codebase is violating a lot of them."