Programmer Humor

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SatyrSack 9 points 3 months ago

Looks like https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware/

parent

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 41 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It's even more funny if you know the backstory of bun. It was basically the perfect example of how to not to do things before they burned a whole forrest to have Claude slop it into another language, based on a codebase that was measurably bad. Now nobody actually knows the whole codebase anymore.

Given the phenomenal garbage that are the other big vibecoded projects (like the "compiler that can compile Linux" - it can't) using bun now is just like lottery.

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What was wrong with bun before? I never used it just heard it had some great performance

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 54 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

The code quality apparently was abysmal and full of dirty hacks due to a mix of "beginner energy" and "go fast & break things" Silicom Valley mindset. The issues with bun (leading to the big Anthropic hack) were subtly blamed on the Zig language, even though Zig is completely fine; Bun's code (which already was full of bad generated slop at that point, as well as code by programmers who were treated badly -> more bad code) was just crap.

After Zig was blamed the Zig creator wrote a blogpost detailing all of it. Worth a read, certainly more human than the corposlop Anthropic announces.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 3 months ago

andrew kelley is such a cool guy his attitude alone made me want to learn zig

parent

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago (10 children)

So bun is going to suck soon?

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] SwooshBakery624@programming.dev 87 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Fun fact: After Anthropic rewrote Bun in Rust, Zig's lead developer stated that they used Bun as an example of how not to write Zig code. So, the answer is that is always did.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 3 months ago

Because of the names, your comment sounds utterly ridiculous to someone who has never heard of Bun or Zig.

Source: someone who has never heard of Bun or Zig.

parent

[–] mamg22@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So they rewrote poor Zig code into what probably is even poorer Rust code, and from what I've seen, using their AI to do it. Yeah, that sounds like they're getting a fully functional and non-buggy piece of software.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Ghoelian@piefed.social 7 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

And they're initially doing it without Rust's ~~memory safety~~ borrow checker iirc, so a big part of the benefit isn't there

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 7 points 3 months ago

Unsafe Rust code doesn't turn off the borrow checker, it basically just allows you to play with pointers and call code that the compiler can't (or can't right now) statically assert is sound. IE if you roll your own Vtable the functions are safe to call, but the compiler can't tell so you have to use unsafe

parent

[–] mamg22@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ok this is funny. Like "look bro, we rewrote bun in Rust because it's ✨Safe✨ and all that", and they're not even trying lmao

In all seriousness, part of that issue probably comes from the original code already ignoring the safety features of Zig, and whatever LLM they used to port it just doing the most half-assed thing and doing a literal translation of the code.

The future of software development, ladies and gentlemen

Edit: rust safety

Yes I know unsafe in rust doesn't mean unsafe code, it just that the compiler trusts you to correctly use the interfaces and references since it won't check them inside such blocks