| ▲ | tipiirai 5 days ago |
| Unused code is one issue. A project called Buz[1] found over 11,000 lines of dead code from the Rust port. [1]: https://github.com/jazzzooo/buz |
|
| ▲ | aureate 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That was 11,000 lines of dead code removed from pre-rust Bun. In a million lines of vibed Rust Bun I'd be astonished if there was a mere 11,000 unused LoC. Noticing unused code isn't a strength of LLMs in my experience. |
|
| ▲ | unified101 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 11k out of a million. I wish I had a project under 1% of "dead code". |
| |
| ▲ | verdverm 5 days ago | parent [-] | | there are linters that check for dead code (depending on your language / ecosystem), it should always be 0% | | |
| ▲ | jibal 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The dead code was removed from the pre-Rust Zig version. The OP has no credibility. P.S. Nor does new user parenting my comments. | | | |
| ▲ | dgellow 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You cannot be serious, any person with actual professional software experience would laugh at that claim | |
| ▲ | dminik 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, how do you check that your frontend code (possibly not even managed by your team) is calling and needs all of your backend endpoints? I'm sure it can be done, and it probably should, but saying it should always be 0% is not very pragmatic. | | |
| ▲ | myvoiceismypass 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Dead code likely means chunks of code not used by other chunks of code, which should be easy to determine statically in most modern languages. Whether an exposed endpoint is being hit (used) or not as an API is more of a test-code-coverage thing, different from the concept of "dead code". | | |
| ▲ | dminik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | True, but Bun actually has a similar problem. It's creating bindings to a JS runtime. If the JS glue code then no longer uses it, the code is still marked as alive because it's registered with the runtime. |
| |
| ▲ | touisteur 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In a previous life I managed to deliver a system with (basic-block) coverage measurement compiled in (gcov) but instead of the mess of files gcov generates, the whole coverage structure was streamed to a remote server (it compressed very well). Once that was in place it was an amazing telemetry tool. Later on used Intel Processor Trace in a similar fashion for even finer (mc-dc) coverage. Coverage tools are very useful, if a bit hard to use... |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dvt 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| First of all, I'd need to see a diff on that. It's insane to make that kind of claim without backing it up. Second of all, dead code (as in truly dead code: like an if statement that is guaranteed to never be true), is optimized away by the compiler. So even if we had all this dead code, it is not an issue that would ever impact the final product. Third of all, the Bun runtime consists of over a million lines of code, so that figure (again, even if true) is insignificant. |
| |
| ▲ | aureate 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's insane to make that kind of claim without backing it up. A bizarre accusation. It's a fork of Bun that says they removed the dead code. All you have to do to see the diffs is look at its history. Most of the commits are code removal. It's a fork of Zig bun, though, not Rust, so hardly relevant to the AI argument. |
|
|
| ▲ | jibal 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Congrats on completely undermining your own argument and credibility. Did you not even read your link? > Buz is an early-stage experimental fork of pre-Rust Bun.... Over 11,000 lines of dead code removed from upstream Bun. |
