I think you're missing group 3, which is the "assume bad faith and/or bad outcome from any possible change to anything, and especially changes to open source projects that can be interpreted as exogenous, e.g. from an acquirer, and especially if that acquirer is a gigantic commercial entity."

There are not nearly enough disenfranchised Bun-on-Zig contributors to make a dent in this conversation. There are lots of Group 3s in every similar convo, for any combination of technology, project, and acquirer you can name.

▲

atonse a day ago | parent [-]

I think most of the naysayers are in group 3 because there’s a lot of anger but never a single link to a blog post or analysis done by anyone to demonstrate a regression. not one. There are some that analyzed the quality of the initial rust code and use of unsafe but Claude has been chewing through those as I understand.

	▲	simonw a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I thought that too but it looks like the usage of unsafe hasn't been trending down over time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966569#48967630
	▲	endospore 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30719#issuecomment-446... Personally I chose not to disclose my findings in public to avoid this kind of outcome. Having a good laugh with others is not as important as keeping the result of this experiment undisturbed. This also eliminates the chance of another round of marketing of LLM ability based on actual human contributions and I suggest everyone who is able to analyze the code to do the same - so that they cannot misattribute our ability to LLMs.
	▲	ksec a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It was a PR issue more than anything else. It is also a proxy for Pro AI and Anti AI sentiment. And for most part I don't think it was communicated well apart from the last blog post.