I mention Anthropic dogfooding this in the article.

In this sentence, sure:

> Anthropic is dogfooding this, the machine is still ticking along, and Anthropic employees are directly involved.

The problem is that your article's central claim is that there hasn't been a Bun release since the Rust rewrite - which can be read as implying that the rewrite hasn't been used in production.

But it's been used in production on millions of machines running Claude Code for over a month!

I think failing to acknowledge that hurts the credibility of the article. It's been a heated discussion point in this thread already.

▲

tomlockwood an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I link to Jarred's writeup on bun.com, where you'll note he mentions that its being used on Prisma and Claude Code.

I don't agree that using something in a very specific environment is the same as a wide release.

I trust readers will either know the backstory or read the articles I link to. Such is life if they don't.

▲

simonw 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Why are you resistant to adding a sentence to the article that notes that Claude Code uses the rewrite?

Do you think it would weaken the article?

When I said it would improve the credibility I did mean it. My instinct on reading the article this morning was "this person doesn't know that Claude Code runs on Bun, which weakens their credibility in presenting the argument they are making here."

	▲	tomlockwood 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Please feel free to write an article that corrects my mistakes.

▲

root_axis 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> which can be read as implying that the rewrite hasn't been used in production.

Well it hasn't. "Production" for a language runtime means being generally available for arbitrary use. The engineers that built the runtime using it to release one closed source binary to the public is, at best, an extremely narrow beta test.