https://xunroll.com/thread/2053047748191232310 Recent and related: Zig → Rust porting guide - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016880 - May 2026 (540 comments) |
https://xunroll.com/thread/2053047748191232310 Recent and related: Zig → Rust porting guide - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016880 - May 2026 (540 comments) |
As expected, Modula-2 / Objective Pascal like safety was great during the last century, before automatic resource management, and improved type system became common in this century.
Naturally also have to note, wasn't this supposed to be only an experiment, nothing serious?
The Rust rewrite now passes 99.8% of Bun’s pre-existing Linux x64 glibc test suite.
But in all honesty, I don't understand the extremism in Rust engineers that reject any other language.
I feel like one of Rust's defining philosophies is modularity, in the sense that each module should be self-contained, and have clear boundaries. This can come up as an assumption behind their arguments imo.
I'm also reminded of video game forums where everyone argued whether the Xbox or Playstation is better, not because they're genuinely interested in the pros and cons of each system, but because they only have an allowance to buy one of them, so they're trying to gaslight everyone and themselves into believing the one they picked is better. In the case of programming languages, there's only so much time in the day, so the people who post on this site go all-in on the programming language they picked, and will rationalize any reason they can think of to believe the language they picked is better.
"I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues"
bun was zig's poster child. if it moves away, it becomes yet another random language like nim or crystal.
First of all, did he not pick the language for Bun himself? Then introduced bunch of memory bugs, sound like skill issue cascade.
I remember some years ago in podcast touting how amazing Zig is to allow them being so performant which was the claim to fame for Bun, now to turn around and shit on the thing. Interesting persona.
Also worth noting that opentui is... Zig!
Very unclear what it's going to take to get this reviewed and shipped, but some very high potential. I've seen some other changes going by in opencode for node.js compatibility; I'm not sure what besides the tui has Ffi needs that might be gating; maybe nothing!
The LLMs are quite good at re-writes and even better when provided an 'oracle' like a well rounded test suite or existing implementation to work against.
Its part of the reason we keep seeing "I rewrote <library> in <language>" posts on hackernews and when you look at the repo its more like I prompted claude to rewrite this repo in rust or whatever.
Bun powers Claude.
---
https://research.ibm.com/publications/enterprise-scale-cobol...
If I'm building a simple GUI app, I'm not sure the friction from Rust is all that worthwhile. If I'm sending someone to space, I think I'd rather have the safeties of a Rust or an Ada, or MISRA C.
Honestly, Zig community seems the most bitter for whatever reason, while on the Rust side it seems to me that are simply overstating how great the language is and are pushy in trying to convince the other of their ideas.
If this goes through, we can all take SWE lessons from it, but I think the communities will suffer.
And on the seventh day Claude ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done
More interestingly: will we need to care about the code at all, at that point?
My question is, to people even older than me (and I'm certainly not young), does anyone remember this much enthusiasm about people rewriting C code into (C++/Java/Whatever was new and hot)? Because I don't, but maybe I missed it.
Java WORA write once, run anywhere was definitely a thing when it came out. Java Applets came out of the woodwork and were the WASM of their day. Even Cisco ran Java for their router UI for a while, which was painful.
More recently, HN went through a period about 10 years ago where every other article ended in " ... written in Go".
The mantra may not have rhymed with "rewrite X in Y" but the spirit was there.
What happened to that: is Go no longer considered great / popular?
OS and embedded programming require bare metal support and data structures that can run standalone in the absence of an OS and standard library, and the ecosystem must exist to support such a style of programming.
Currently Rust has over 10000 crates that would theoretically work just fine in an kernel environment.
I wonder how much of this is original size vs rust requiring verbosity vs the LLM being verbose in general.
Not a criticism, I do believe language translation it's the one field that AI is mature enough to near one shot projects.
As far as I understand the situation in the US (sorry, no idea where he is located), output from LLMs, once published, is essentially in the Public Domain, since there isn't any human who owns it.
However, in some sense, this is also a machine-assisted translation from one computer language into another, so one could argue that the ownership of the original code base still applies to the new one.
Which one is it? Is there any way to find out before a similar case goes to court?
That’s not what the court case in question was about: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/us-supreme-court-de...
If I ask an LLM to come up with an entirely new story on its own, the output is not copyrightable.
But if I feed an LLM a Tom Clancy novel and ask it to regurgitate that same novel, I cannot legally then put the output on a website for anyone to download.
https://ziglang.org/news/300k-from-mitchellh/
https://ziglang.org/news/2024-financials/#income
https://ziglang.org/news/2025-financials/#income
I had a bit of trouble finding it myself but Claude proved a better Googler than I
Off: I'm wondering if now when more JS finds place on our machines and bundle size is 2nd place for most, would a revival of prepack or projects in the same vein would be worth it, especially with agents.
The answer is... more than any of us could likely afford.
(in a VAE-ish way, kl div on the embeddings?)
I think it should be possible to appreciate how impressive this is on one hand, while also discussing the limitations of the approach.
Everyone can probably agree that getting this far without LLMs would have taken substantially longer and required a huge amount of work.
But what is then the end result?
Personally, for me it would still be hard pass on using a 1M LoC LLM-migrated language runtime - I have seen CC do enough crazy things to still be wary of any code without a human in the loop. It simply plays too fundamental a role in the tech stack. Others might feel differently, and time will tell how things play out.
Even if this does play out as optimistically as one can imagine, would it then mean I can go and migrate some of my enterprise codebases the same way? I doubt it.
Bun has the nice feature that it has an extensive set of black box / E2E tests that don't themselves need migrating. Most projects in the wild seem to be much more reliant on unit and integration tests that are part of the codebase itself, and would therefore also need to be migrated and be subject to mistakes in the migration process.
It also seems fairly rare that test suites are good enough to guarantee that the program will work as expected in all cases. I am yet to come across a larger enterprise codebase where the tests were good enough to make human review and even manual testing fully redundant. To be honest I doubt that is the case for Bun either, but I don't know enough about bun to conclude that.
inb4 .unwrap() / slice / etc hell + livelocks & deadlocks + resource leaks & toctou bugs + larger exposure to supply chain attacks
Still, ~1M LOC ported in a work week (400 LOC/min, wtf?) and almost all of it working is pretty wild. I hope the guy managed to maintain normal function, cause I found that getting into the flow but with AI is even more self-consuming and intoxicating than without it, which was already potentially rather rough.
But the effort is certainly an exquisite rearrangement of the deck chairs, no?
bun script.ts just works.
Otherwise I bet it wouldn't even be a blip in our radar.
That said, yes, you’re correct that Bun isn’t GPL: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun?tab=License-1-ov-file
Do developers using Rust even know the difference ? Like how anyone can basically take all you work & base a proprietary fork on it with maybe saying "thanks" (attribution) if they feel like it ? :P
I'd assume the Bun people got a bit more than a thanks when Anthropic acquired them. :)
You also can't take your GPL code (unless you do CLAs with all contributors), convert it to closed source yourself and make a massive VC funded startup around it. Which is about the only other way anyone makes better money from open source than by just working for a big tech company.
Most of them never got into the GPL in the first place.
> I work on Bun and this is my branch
>
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.
>
> I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get it to pass Bun’s test suite and be maintainable. I’d like to be able to compare a viable Rust version and a Zig version side by side.From your post, though, it sounds like Bun may have been a pretty direct rewrite, without too many hard choices along the way. Is that fair?
This would not have been possible 5 years ago. LLMs are going to push us into the space age. Both Anthropic and OpenAI have committed to spending 10s of billions of dollars on training alone for the year. I am equally excited and terrified at the pace of progress!
Perhaps 16,000 could just measure cascade breakage, for example one lifetime mismatch can cause errors in every function that tries to use that reference.
Rust reference lifetime bookkeeping is a difficult task for LLMs. The LLM has to maintain, across multiple functions and structs, which references outlive which. Furthermore compiler messages are highly contextual and lifetime patterns are sparse in the training set.
Basically we are seeing now an "inverse Hofstadter's Law" where doing something with an LLM takes less time thanexpected even when you take into account this law.
I am a Rust developper myself but I really love Zig and Bun. I am just overly curious of all this.
haven't used zig...(only used rust)
but zig doesn't solve those problems?
Bun: Hold my beer
The AI companies and their associates are beginning to surpass that level of denials and lies.
would the world come to a standstill tomorrow if every Bun instance out there ran on Node.js ?
they know their A.I can't sell without the noise that it's now on the edge of the frontier. this is hype.
zig adopting a strict 'no LLM' policy affects the LLM vendors.
> I expect OSS to go the opposite direction: no human contribution allowed. Slop will be a nostalgic relic of 2025 & 2026.
We should have seen this coming after they got acquired by Anthropic, but it's still disappointing. I'm not against large language models as a technology, just thoroughly disgusted how these "AI" companies rose to power, eating the software industry and the rest of society. It's creating a very unhealthy dependency.
Think a few steps ahead and start preparing a slop-free software stack and community. That includes Zig and its ecosystem. Even if we (and future generations) don't manage to live entirely without slop, it's more important than ever to ensure a sustainable computing culture, free as in freedom.
Let's take this to a different domain, self driving cars. Would you equally argue for human driving? I'm pretty sure over time it will become clear to everyone that machines will be able to outperform humans consistently at this task, to the degree that human driving will become illegal. But for now the press likes to focus on any failure of machine driving, taking for granted human drivers are the largest or second largest cause of premature death in many countries.
Coding (in many ways, but not all) is a more open ended and versatile task than driving, so it's natural that current iterations seem untrustworthy, but ignoring the trajectory is erring on conservatism, and doesn't seem to me to be grounded in any sound reasoning.
Seems like that would make open source entirely controlled by open ai, anthropic et al.
Rust is perfect for writing all of code using LLM. It's strict type system makes is less likely to make very dumb mistakes that other languages might allow.
Also want to note that writing the code using LLM doesn't remove the need to have a vision for the design and tradeoffs you make as you build a project. So Jarred and his team are the right kind of people to be able to leverage LLMs to write huge amounts of code.
Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs due to them using Zig, unlike Deno which is Rust.
Of course, if Bun's Rust port has tons of `unsafe`, it won't magically solve them all, but it'll still get better
It's going to be hard to compete with someone or a company that has more compute. They will just be able to do things you can't.
Developers use LLMs to migrate a million line codebase to a language that they have much less experience with in such a short amount of time that they likely do not have a good mental model of the migrates code.
At least the tests pass.
Only one person drove the migration, so the number of people that understand the new code is ~0.5 under the assumption there's no way the sole dev could build a mental model of fresh 1m code in 6 days.
This is code for a language runtime.
It's great that the tests pass but it's really hard for me to interpret this as anything other than horrible mismanagement of a promising project. When you sit this low in the stack this is grossly irresponsible and I have no idea why anyone would use Bun after this. You'd be literally adopting a runtime the devs presumably don't understand, keep in mind they now somehow need to evolve and maintain this in the future.
Hopefully this remains an experiment, or Bun has some plan for re-upping dev knowledge of the codebase. Sorry but a component with massive blast radius like a runtime isn't really a good candidate for vibe coding, no matter how good the AI is. I'd like the maintainers to actually understand their runtime, thanks.
Node beat Deno and Bun. Pretty impressive.
They fork Zig to utilize LLM rewrites and build something the Zig team clearly disregarded (non-deterministic compiling)
And now like a whiny baby they LLM rewrite to Rust. There is a very real chance that Zig design philosophy got them to the point where they are now by enforcing to make the tough but precise decisions and the Rust rewrite is the start of the downfall.
It’s purely politics-based not technical, but it seems like bun is full on pampered by Claude. So much that I wouldn’t wonder that the next marketing piece of Anthropic is. Claude Mythos rewrote leading 950k LOC JS Runtime to Rust.
I just hope it's noted when this is eventually marketed how much human effort went into designing and curating the test suite that even enabled this speed in the first place.
A test suite sort of functions exactly like the ideal scenario for current gen llms. A comprehensive enough test suite essentially forms the spec for agents to implement however they see fit - in this case rust.
You could probably throw away the entire actual source code in certain cases and reimplement the whole thing from scratch just giving an agent access to the tests when it's as well crafted as a project like bun.
Ignore the hundreds of thousands of hours put into the original architecture and test suite that made it possible in the first place.
I am not sure why people sound so astounded, to be honest. This has been my frank experience of the agentic tools both Codex and Claude since about December.
When given the right constraints this kind of thing is entirely conceivable.
However the important question not being answered here is: does anybody working on it have a full understanding of what has been built?
My experience having constructed similar types of projects using these tools is yes, you could do this in a week or two but now you'll have a month or two of digging through what it made, understanding what was built, and undoing critical yolo leaps of faith it made that you didn't want.
The thesis is that Rust makes undefined behavior less likely.
So much of the fundamental dynamics of the industry and the job have changed in so little time. Basically over night.
Some days I am so excited at how much I can do now. You can build anything you want, in basically no time! 100% of my software dreams can be a reality.
Some days I am terrified at what's going to happen to the job market.
Suddenly you can get so much with so little. The world only needs so much software.
Is every company that sells software as their core business model going to go out of business?
What will happen if only certain companies or governments get access to the best models?
Some commenters have remarked they only heard of Zig because of Bun, therefore this is bad for Zig. Not so. In my opinion, there has always been a mismatch. I say with no ill will that a divorce is likely better for both parties. I genuinely believe Bun will be better software once fully converted to Rust.
Even now:
bun (zig) [1] 119 open / 885 closed
deno (rust) [2] 0 open / 1 closed
I don't think this has that much to do with Zig's anti-AI stance. More about using the right tool for the job.
[1] https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3...
[2] https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state...
https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state...
There 10 open and 40 closed on Deno.
Lets see the fruit of their decision.
https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct...
Claude code C compiler passed 100% of gcc tests and couldn't even run a hello world...
If you've heard this problem described as a fundamental limitation of the compiler, and not the kind of packaging glitch that's routine to find in pre-alpha software of all descriptions, whoever described it to you that way is not serving their readers well.
I'm not saying CCC was production-ready, or close -- the total lack of an optimizer would be a killer in any real use, and I assume that there were problems with the diagnostics at least as bad as problems with performance and the include files, for similar reasons -- the LLMs hadn't been asked to optimize for that stuff yet, just test suite correctness. But it did achieve that, and the amount of cope I've seen on social media claiming otherwise is more than a bit disturbing.
The main problem I think that it was extremely slow.
if you give just the logical tests, it wont consider the speed at all. if you included tests that measure the speed and ask the llm to match the performance, itll do that too.
its the same class of error as everything else with llms. it has no common sense context for things people consider important. if you dont enforce the boundaries, it will ignore them
How important is well specified opt function? No one knows. We will find out
Many find it distasteful, and many finding liberating. I think it's broadly correlates with how they feel about expressing themselves in english vs say C++.
As a side question, is there anyone who's using LLMs primarily in non-english mode to program? I suspect there's quite a few people using mandarin, but can someone share first-hand account.
But the timescale still gives me pause… just because AI lets us convert a codebase in 6 days doesn’t mean it’s wise. There are surely a lot of downstream implications! It’s always felt a little like Bun is making up a plan as it goes along (and maybe that’s unfair), this seems to underline the point.
OK, they've got a working prototype, congrats! Now it needs to be put into shape so that all the unsafe blocks are eliminated (maybe with a few tiny exceptions), and the code is turned into maintainable, readable, reasonably idiomatic Rust.
I wonder how long is it going to take.
Not sure that rule is even applicable anymore, but I don't have a better heuristic to make guesses by either.
All the unsafe seems to be FFI?
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aoven-sh%2Fbun+unsafe+lang...
> and the code is turned into maintainable, readable, reasonably idiomatic Rust. I wonder how long is it going to take.
This isn't a c2rust rewrite?
The rewrite's in https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/tree/claude/phase-a-port. By running the following command on it, I count about 14,000 unsafe blocks:
rg --stats -g '*.rs' 'unsafe \{|unsafe impl|#!?\[unsafe\('Cannot imagine this agent rewrite had anyone review any the code (you can’t at that speed).
I’m positive this will go extremely well :p
I don't want to infringe upon your right to speculate. I just want to point out that your statement is at best a speculation.
Programming languages were always designed as an abstraction to allow humans to more easily instruct a computer than by writing binary or assembly. If humans write natural language and don't check the generated code, there's no reason to take the hit of generating C, JS, etc that still has to be compiled and/or interpreted.
Forcing LLMs to do a shitty job of what a compiler can do deterministically is not a good approach IMO.
Thanks for the sharing
But if you want it to coexist with humans, then it doesn't seem to work well. It gets in the way of human learning and human communication. Making professionals and teams weaker essentially
We always think it’s not gonna hit us… we may be wrong
Few big popular projects use Zig, if they start to move away from it, what Zig's future will look like?
If this succeeds, there is no stopping AI given it will have crossed the rubicon of human bottlenecks.
I don’t see how this is a good look for Bun?
I question this. Yes, strong enforcement of invariants at compile time helps the LLM generate functional code since it gets rapid feedback and retraces as opposed to generating buggy code that fails at runtime in edge cases.
On the other hand, Rust is a complex language prone to refactoring avalanches, where a small change in a component forces refactoring distant code. If the initial architecture is bad or lacking, growing the code base incrementally as LLMs typically do will tend towards spaghettification. So I fear a program that compiles and even runs ok, but no longer human readable or maintainable.
This may be so, but LLMs are great at slogging through such tedious repercussions.
I would say if the language prevents sloppy intermediate states, that actually makes it more amenable to AI; if you just half-ass a refactor into a conceptually inconsistent state, it’s possible for bad tests to fail to catch it in Python, say. But if many such incomplete states are just forbidden, then the compiler errors provide a clean objective function that the LLM can keep iterating on.
Are you saying this out of personal experience or just hypothesizing? I am working on a large, complex rust project with Claude Code and do not experience this at all.
I haven't had any issues with this getting out of hand on >10KLOC vibed rust codebases.
The lesson here is that right now LLMs are a lot better at "fill in the implementation for this API I defined" than "design everything from scratch" if you care at all about whether it becomes a mess of spaghetti. Maybe someday they'll be better at it, but at least today, you have to choose between going full vibes and not caring about the code, or you need to be involved in the design, and either way it's not clear that Rust is a significantly worse choice based on anything other than your own experience.
Example of a Claude Code session after 2 hours of "Crunching" that came out without results https://github.com/mohsen1/tsz/pull/4868 (Edit I force pushed to PR to solve the problem, you can see the initial refuse message in the initial version of PR description)
Funny thing is, the last percent of the test have been so hard to work on that Opus 4.7 routinely bails and says "it's too involved or complicated" so I had to add prompts specifically asking it not to bail.
I've also seen the benefits of Rust for this too. And making the bet that my pg experience will help me make good design choices around many of the things people have been having trouble with in pg for a long time[1]. Excited to see AI make it more possible to improve complex pieces of software than has historically been practical.
[0] https://github.com/malisper/pgrust [1] https://malisper.me/the-four-horsemen-behind-thousands-of-po...
You use the test suite and LLMs are trained on Postgres.
Are you at Freshpaint? A company that "helps healthcare marketing teams grow in a world where privacy is the baseline, but performance is the goal."
Nice promises! Surely the marketing teams will respect privacy!
curious about your workflow for running all these accounts. different harnesses in parallel? manually switching in codex? 5.5pro only?
what works for you?
Left to itself, it often follows human developers who conceive of their goal as "get the program working, the end justifies the means." Which makes sense because there are a lot of systems like that in the training corpus.
100%. I've been telling everyone who will listen this for 2 years. LLMs are infinitely more productive with swift code like
let engineCycleCount: Int = 5
vs
let eC = 5
They still make mistakes, but forcing _explicit_ typing in a strongly typed language makes them make far fewer mistakes + the compiler is catching >90% of what you try to catch with a billion rspecs in trash languages like ruby.
Pretty impressive that it is faster than the Go version already.
It's much faster in single file benchmarks (3 to 5x)
https://tsz.dev/benchmarks/micro
I have optimizations planned for large projects that I'm still flushing out.
Rust is a terrible language for using LLMs to write code if Rust's low latency isn't needed, because of its extreme compile times. LLMs code faster than humans so a far bigger fraction of the time is spent waiting for the compiler, and a reasonably sized project will take literally 10x longer to compile in Rust than in e.g. Zig or Go.
Also remember, `cargo check` is quite fast, and wholly sufficient for confirming correctness.
But if you mean in general, I also totally feel that languages that let you represent more invariants statically are better fit for LLMs. I'd love to see experimentation with LLMs with dependent types and managed effects.
Any stats/source? Not that I think it's false
> and the ugly parts look uglier (unsafe) which encourages refactoring.
Looks like Bun owes that to itself to some extent, not solely because of the language
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3...
119 open, 885 closed
https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state...
10 open, 46 closed
> why: I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues. it would be so nice if the language provided more powerful tools for preventing these things.
Not a hard number obviously but a clear indication those issues exist.
You get very few of the Rust guarantees when you litter your code with unsafe to get around the safety checks (which is what they're doing here). I would not recommend running this in production.
What caused you to hallucinate such a broad blanket statement? The point is the memory unsafety issues they ran into would be categorically impossible in safe Rust, which is why they're doing this in the first place.
While bounds checking, improved argument passing, typed pointers, proper strings and arrays are an improvement over C, it still suffers from use after free cases.
C++ already prevents many of those scenarios, at least for those folks that don't use it as a plain Better C, and actually make use of the standard library in hardned mode. When not, naturally is as bad as C.
Also to note that the tools that Zig offers to prevent that, are also available in C and C++, but people have to actually use them, e.g. I was using Purify back in 2000's.
Then there is the whole point that Zig is not yet 1.0, and who knows what will still change until then.
They're difficult to find, difficult to reason about in big software and you'll always create some. Languages that rule that out are a huge improvement in terms of correctness.
This is a classic logic problem - eg “there is an orange cat” doesn’t imply “all cats are orange”.
There’s a lot of leaky crap written in those languages too. One of the core promises of Rust is that the compiler will catch memory issues other languages won’t experience until runtime. If Zig doesn’t offer something similar it’ll make Rust very compelling.
plenty of other companies/entities making high quality software in zig? tigerbeetle, zig itself for example.
Bun's entire history has been a kind of haphazard move as fast as you can story, so...
When you’re starting with a complete codebase to use as an example and a test suite to check everything it’s much easier to iterate toward the desired goal. The LLM can already see what the goals are and how they’ve been implemented once already, which is a much easier problem than starting from a spec.
My point is, there’s no chance of a “haves and have nots” emerging, any more than electricity turned out that way in the modern world.
In the US, (nearly) full electrification wasn't achieved until the late 1940's/early 1950's - a process of nearly a century. (A moment of personal trivia, my great grandfather worked on crews electrifying rural areas of the midwest.)
Energy costs vary widely across the world and that has enormous capacity for the economies of different countries and their industrial capacity.
These models are a race to the bottom just like compute.
This is both amazing and scary; has been for a while now.
45 million lines would get to ~$1.125 mil for the linux kernel.
950k lines for Bun would get to $23,750
use whatever math you like ofc.
Does an Anthropic/employee pay that, no. Even if it's at a loss in terms of company revenue, it's worth burning the private capital for all kinds of other reasons.
Yawn.
I didn't see any whining from Jarred, this seems like misplaced sentiment
> It’s purely politics-based
The linked twitter thread gives clear technical justifications
There are legit reasons to rewrite a program in a better fitting language, but as a runtime to be "tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability" is really borderline to me.
Also there are way more things to it than just compile time and tests: you reset mental model and will lose contributers. There is philosophy, developer skill and more attached to a language.
In this case both compile via LLVM the same and there is no performance benefit given the code is written exactly the same, so it’s developer preference, where the current head seemed to prioritize his own DX over everyone else’s.
But again this is mainly my gut feeling. I’m not the first dev that doesn’t like the way bun changes : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48011184
https://bun.com/blog/bun-joins-anthropic
I'm not sure if the 50% of people defending the whole rewrite live under a rock with regard to the acquisition or have never worked at a US company or a deliberately naive. Companies give instructions. Nothing of this is accidental or prompted by curiosity.
Jarred mentioned having to work on fixing memory leaks as the main motivation to try this.
https://xcancel.com/jarredsumner/status/2053058171338682875#...
I was never fully comfortable with Zig given it's much less mature than Rust. Maybe this will be for the better.
Much of working in the JS / NPM ecosystem is already pure faith on un-vetted dependencies, and this appears no different pre or post LLM rewrite. If it satisfies the intended goal and API contract it originally did, is there any difference? Were you carefully reading the original source code before?
You don't?
Anthropic bought it in a somewhat dumb attempt to solve their "performance" issues (not realizing their horrible code was the issue in the first place).
It probably helped them, simply because they brought in some actually competent developers.
But doing so, Bun went from being a public project to more of an internal tool for Anthropic, spoiled for now with AI money and losing quite a bit of focus.
Let's hope that when the bubble pops, some of the Bun effort could at least be salvaged. I don't see Anthropic maintaining it long term, they are simply not in the business of selling support for a runtime nor have the (Google) scale justifying maintaining one on the side.
The risks of using bun are no longer just those concerns around a newer tech and "drop-in" replacement for nodejs. Now you have to marry Anthropic, Rust, and a founder with conflicting priorities.
Probably not, for a number of reasons:
* Some software suites are (probably still for a few years) too big to regenerate them through a coding LLM
* There's quite a lot of proprietary knowledge not just in the code itself, but in the requirements, industry knowledge etc. For example if you want to write a hospital management system, you need to know a lot about how hospital works, how they are billing their services in different legislatures, data protection rules etc.
* For some pieces of software (like computer-aided engineering), validation of the software is just as important as the software itself.
* Liability: suppose you build bridges, and you're on the hook if it fails too early. Do you really want to vibe-code your own software that validates the bridge's design? Will any insurance company cover that? Probably not in the near future...
* Currently, security and safety of LLM-generated code is still a pretty big concern. I guess this will get better as the LLM-Coding industry matures.
Around the time of the dot com crash, there was a decent amount of rhetoric advising students and job seekers against getting into the software industry, because it was getting "too saturated." The thinking was there's just not that much work to go around, especially for the number of people flocking to the field. And the crash just reinforced that narrative.
But even as a student back then, I could tell that there was unlimited scope for software. Pretty much any cognitive thing we do manually could be done in software. I once idly tried to enumerate those and quickly realized there was soooo much to do. Plus, I also understood that the more you do things a new way, a lot more things pop up that we haven't even imagined yet. The possibilities were countless. It was clear that the "saturation" narrative stemmed from a lack of people's imagination and understanding of what software really was.
I just knew that this field would never get saturated because it was impossible to run out of things to write software for.
But these days...
I mean, I know we will always have new software to build as things evolve, which they will do faster than ever with AI. But these days, I wonder if it's now possible to write software faster than we can imagine new things to do.
Yes, although I suggest being careful with that kind of thinking.
https://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/...
Do you think 100 enterprises with 1 bln of tokens are going to make a better product than specialized vendor with 100bln of tokens?
For sure SW vendors and SAAS like "logo creator" are already dead, but unless the next generation of LLMs aren't going to have an embedded ticketing system the ticketing system vendor will be fine(maybe less headcount, but not sure).
I'm not sure if this is sound reasoning, because "better product" is very context-dependent.
My currently employer has migrated away from RT to OTRS as ticket system, and now moving to servicenow.
The RT instance was heavily patched/customized.
The OTRS instance was heavily patched/customized.
We try not to customize servicenow quite as much, but the less we customize it, the more we have to change the workflows in our company. And humans are slow to adapt.
With this experience in mind, the question is more: do we want to spend lots of money on a vendor-supplied ticket system, and then spend lots more LLM tokens to customize it, or do we LLM-build it from the ground-up?
If we started a new ticket system migration project today, maybe the best answer would be to start with an easily-customizable Open Source ticket system, and then throw LLM-power at customizing it.
LLMs work best when the user defines their acceptance criteria first - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47283337 - March 2026 (422 comments)
As an aside, I don’t think the benefits LLMs bring to non-English users are widely understood. I studied linguistics and Russian, and I’m capable of professional interpretation in English and Russian. Even so, I can read technical documents, understand them, and communicate about them much faster and with far less effort in my native language, Korean. These days, I read most English documentation and HN posts through Chrome’s automatic translation. Sometimes the translation is ambiguous, but in those cases I can immediately refer back to the original English. This has been a major help to me and to other Korean developers I work with.
Polish prompts tend to be shorter due to the language having a lot of verb forms/conjugations, the only "bad" thing for me is that when it's saying "it broke" it tends to use uncanny / blunt words that make me sometimes laugh.
What are your prompts like?
After all `def func():` is only 3 tokens on o200k_base.
The authoritative answer for this question would best come from the millions (or tens of millions) of Chinese-speakers who are currently using LLMs to write software.
However, it is my suspicion that you would see no advantages using any language other than English. While there is a certain token-level density to written texts, it seems the benefits of this (and the more recent discussion around “caveman talk”) are quite limited.
Furthermore, consider that the vast majority of textbooks, technical documentation, blog posts, StackOverflow answers, &c. are originally in English. Historically, where these have been translated to Chinese, the translations have often been of very poor quality (and the terminology and phraseology is often incomprehensible unless you also understand some English.) I would suspect that this makes up the overwhelming majority of the training sets for these models.
That said, my experience using the most recent models, is that they are surprisingly language-agnostic in a way that surpasses readily-available human capability. For example, I can prompt the LLM to translate English into something that uses German grammar, Chinese vocabulary, and Japanese characters, and I'll get an output that is worse than what a human expert could do… but where am I going to find a multilingual expert?
(Of course, I have so far only ever been impressed that a model could generate an output but never impressed with the output it did generate. Everything—translations, prose, code—seems universally sloppy and bland and muddy.)
So what I would anticipate the biggest benefit for a Chinese-speaker today… is that if they are disinterested in working internationally, they have significantly less dependency on learning English.
It is the revenge of UML modeling.
Eventually it will get good enough that what comes out of agent work, is a matter of formal specification.
Assuming that code is actually needed and cannot be achieved as pure agent orchestration workflows.
But Bun has open issues and bugs. The test suite doesn't tell us whether it has introduced many new bugs, solved existing ones the test suite doesn't catch, or anything else. Not to mention, the rewrite is 960K lines that nobody understands. How long will it take for the Rust version to be better, and be understood as well as its current maintainers understand the Zig version?
Having a project consider a rewrite isn't so big a deal. Zig has been designed from the ground up with a vision, and isn't worried about taking a while to create a stable API to achieve that vision. The self-hosted backend shows how incredibly fast incremental compilation is when the language is built for it ground-up. Compared to other languages that implement weaker forms of incremental compilation it isn't even close.
I don't think the Zig team is concerned at all.
Bun, Ghostty, and TigerBeetle are 3 popular projects that I have heard about using zig.
Zig is a very interesting LOW level language, but honestly I think it should be considered for what it is: a better C. I don't think it fits for anything that someone would have written in C++, Java, Haskell or C#. Instead, Rust is competitive with all of these languages when it comes to safety, abstractions and speed. And also C and Zig itself.
Zig has a couple very interesting ideas that make it stand out: comptime and the zig build system.
Alas, Zig is still far from being stable. Rust came out to the public in 2012 and became stable (1.0) in 2015. Zig came out to the public in 2016, and it's 10 years now and someone says it's still years away from 1.0.
So, while rust took 3 years of public development to become stable, zig is taking 10/15 years. I love the language, but TBH I don't see a great future ahead, especially with LLMs advancements that can use safer languages to do the same work. There's no point in risking more memory bugs when the effort for writing code is the same.
When I read about Bun, I get the sense that Jarron has different priorities, mainly moving quickly. Bun also implements a lot of userspace APIs, since the core engine is JavaScriptCore which is written in C++. I think Rust really shines in applications programming, so I guess it makes sense that Rust has lined up with Jarron's needs. I'd be interested to see what JavaScriptCore would look like in Zig versus Rust, I think Zig might have an edge in the core interpreter and JIT.
meaning it doesn't matter except for online discourse about X being bad for 2 days
If I had a codebase with lots of tests and asked someone else to rewrite it to another language passing the same test suite, I honestly wouldn't expect a great quality job.
I say this because it happened 3 times in the company I work for: we conducted experiments by tasking different companies to rewrite the same code in another language. All of them passed (most) of the tests, but code quality was low. If the job is a black box, rely on the I/O to determine quality, not the inner workings.
There's no way this code is understood fully by the original author, let alone anyone else. I wouldn't accept this from an intern, let alone in code that's fundamental to my business.
Why?
Some of the patterns that I saw:
* The code is only called from tests but never called in production
* Tests are not testing the actual application logic, or the logic that matters. In some cases, the tests have nothing to do with the application code at all, because it does not even run any application code.
* Tests repeat the same logic as in application (tautology). All the time.
* Application code is actually incorrect. But tests just end up using the wrong expected value to make tests pass, disregarding what should happen.
That's using the latest models.
To make things better, apparently people never bothered to go through the manual workflow at least once to verify the behavior.
Good luck just relying on tests.
All tests overspecialize and easy to cheat, there is no "program works" test.
> it’s basically the same codebase except now we can have the compiler enforce the lifetimes of types and we get destructors when we want them. and the ugly parts look uglier (unsafe) which encourages refactoring.
> why: I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues. it would be so nice if the language provided more powerful tools for preventing these things.
This makes me trust it more, not less.
That’s exactly the type of thing that is needed is to optimize projects for modern compatibility, portability and safety when other modernization efforts or forks don’t exist.
That said, I suspect this rewrite went so quickly and so optimally because it had the benefit of (effectively) 100% test coverage already in place in a really well defined system. Most open source project spawn from efforts of a single developer who frequently never waste time writing tests for a little side project. Later as it grows, they rarely stop and go back to implement testing. So if you’re truly working with an old dead project, there is a really good chance there are zero tests to be found. That is far more difficult to reach the same completeness unless the goal is simply to port all of those same problems to a new language and hope type safety fixes them.
(Not specific to ngspice, just mean generally.)
Lifetimes can get pretty hard in very complex code bases... even if other aspects of burrow checking may be more common, this is where I've had and seen the biggest gaps in understanding in practice. That said, you can usually do inefficient things to work around these issues with the opportunity to come back later. Often inefficient Rust with lots of clone operations is still faster, smaller, lighter than the same services in Java or C# as an example.
That is actually a very plausible scenario!
If it doesn't work, it doesn't. You can find all these excuses. But at the end of the day, there is a difference between an end user being able to get something out of your code or not.
I am very curious what the numbers are once the test suite passes and after a few passes of reducing the amount of unsafe.
These are two assertions. There could have been a prior secret rewrite that took much longer than six days and this is a marketing stunt for Anthropic. In case people still don't get it, Jarred works for Anthropic and Bun belongs to Anthropic.
> In case people still don't get it, Jarred works for Anthropic and Bun belongs to Anthropic.
In case people still don't get it, Jarred works for Anthropic and Bun belongs to Antrhopic. This means that people that have an ax to grind against anthropic (admittedly a reasonable position), will take the most antagonistic position they possibly can because of personal bias.
Even LLMs themselves can't accurately estimate this (though this may be out of distribution stuff)
[0] https://malisper.me/pgrust-rebuilding-postgres-in-rust-with-... [1] https://malisper.me/pgrust-update-at-67-postgres-compatibili... [2] https://github.com/loongphy/codex-auth
E.g. see https://chadaustin.me/2024/10/intrusive-linked-list-in-rust/ or https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2022/1/30/unsafe-rust/
The saving grace is that in idiomatic Rust code you have very little unsafe code - usually none. But yeah there's no way I would trust AI to get unsafe Rust right.
What comparable gap is there to bridge?
But in this case you don't spend tokens only on your workflows: you have to patch it constantly, perform vulnerability scans, check and adapt for law changes(eg. if you in europe: GDPR or DORA), create and maintain (again security) integrations with other systems and so on.
And, most importantly, you as a corporate need an internal team to do the work and that means it's a liability to you as a corporate ... and we all know it's better to have some else to blame.
Just imagine the CTO or CISO explaining to the CEO that the data breach they had last week and that cost them millions was due to some customization they did on top of an open source ticketing system.
how long does it take to compile?
@jarredsumner: It's basically the same as in zig using our faster zig compiler. If we were using the upstream zig compiler, rust port would compile faster.
In Nova JavaScript engine[1] I've done exactly as you've done and split objects into typed side pools (I call them "(typed) heap vectors") but in a JavaScript engine my _hypothesis_ is that the visitation patterns are much more amenable to this: an Array, Set, or Map is more likely to be homogeneous than heterogeneous, and therefore a loop over the contents is likely going to hit the same side pool for each entry.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_1OG9GwyOw [1]: https://trynova.dev/
Now that most of the implementation is nearly completed, I'm building a lot of instrumentations to have better visibility into those things to have concrete answers to that sort of question. I'm experiencing huge RSS right now that could be exactly what you're pointing to.
KDE also includes many other programs inside it like music player, document reader etc. that I never had any issues with.
Because instead of discussing serious matters, they missed English grammar class on the use of / and then get up in arms about the use of "and, or".
Additionally, even code bases from companies that seat at WG21, lack the use of the so called Modern C++, without any language feature or header files inherited from C.
Better C with some niceties keeps being the prevalent approach, unfortunately.
C strings, C arrays, pointer math, printf family, C style casts, macros instead of templates, no STL, and if not hardned ...
> This reminds me of how all the people carried on as if they were making the kernel so much safer not realizing they needed to use unsafe rust.
Those are not contradictory. Confining unsafe code to a few unsafe blocks makes it easier to identify areas that need closer scrutiny. Just because there are unsafe blocks doesn't mean that using rust in the kernel isn't making it safer.
Try reading it here: https://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/11.html
This rewrite is >750k lines of Rust
- write sleek operator-overloading-based code for simple mathematical operations on your custom pet algebra
- decide that you want to turn it into an autograd library [0]
- realise that you now need either `RefCell` for interior mutability, or arenas to save the computation graph and local gradients
- realise that `RefCell` puts borrow checks on the runtime path and can panic if you get aliasing wrong
- realise that plain arenas cannot use your sleek operator-overloaded expressions, since `a + b` has no access to the arena, so you need to rewrite them as `tape.sum(node_a, node_b)`
- cry
This was my introduction to why you kinda need to know what you will end up building with Rust, or suffer the cascade refactors. In Python, for example, this issue mostly wouldn't happen, since objects are already reference-like, so the tape/graph can stay implicit and you just chug along.
I still prefer Rust, just that these refactor cascades will happen. But they are mechanically doable, because you just need to 'break' one type, and let an LLM correct the fallout errors surfaced by the compiler till you reach a consistent new ownership model, and I suppose this is common enough that LLM saw it being done hundreds of times, haha.
However, a) I think the compiler telling me everywhere I need to fix it is great, and b) even before LLMs, using compile mode with emacs and setting up a macro to jump to next clippy warning, jump to code, fix, and then repeating in batches of like 20-50 could often make it go quite fast.
I've come away feeling that most it looks fixable - but it won't be fixed in Rust. Some of the language choices (like favouring monomorphization to the point of making dll's near impossible) are near impossible to undo now, and in other cases where it might conceivably be fixed (like async) it won't be because the community is too invested with their current solution.
So we are stuck with the Rust we have; warts and all. That blog post convinced me those warts mean the language should be avoided for game development. Similarly sqlite developers convinced me the current state of Rust tooling meant it wasn't a good fit for their style of high reliability coding, so they are sticking with C. Which is a downright perverse outcome.
But for most of us C programmers who aren't willing to put in the huge effort Sqlite does to get the reliability up, Rust is the only game in town right now. It's the first and currently only language to implement a usable formal proof checker that eliminates most of the serious footguns in C and C++. But I am now hoping it becomes a victim of the old engineering adage: plan to throw the first one away, because you will anyway.
With unlimited tokens make it a lint rule or auto formatter.
GPT for instance had a lot of issues using git worktrees, and didn't understand how to correctly use it to then merge stuff back into a main branch, vs Claude which seems to do this much more naturally.
GPT also left me with broken tests/code that I had to iterate on manually, Claude is much better about reasoning through code. Primarily Python.
I wonder how much of that is due to the model being somehow better, or the harness having built-in instructions on how to use them.
I've used worktrees with Codex just fine, but I instructed it to use my scripts for setting it up and tearing it down. The scripts also reflinked existing compilation artifacts to speed up compiling and allocated a fresh db instance for it, but then also applied a simple protocol for locking the master repository during merges, so multiple agents wouldn't try to merge at the same time. It has been following those instructions quite well.
Around 2500 issues with segmentation fault.
https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%22Se...
With the total number of issues being 16,458 for bun and 14,259 for deno.
1 person did a rust rewrite that took 6 days that would have taken hundreds of engineers more than a year to do.
The entire bun team was only about a dozen people and they wrote it from scratch.
It would not take hundreds of engineers to port the existing codebase to another language.
I think this is a cool experiment, but some of these claims are getting absurd.
I agree it’s still mind blowing compared to before times, though.
This is estimating what, 10 lines per day each? No way translating code is anywhere near that slow.
Even cheaper would just be to not do it in the first place. Was there a pressing need to rewrite it?
I'm sure they'll market what you said, but it's so ridiculous that I would hope people would see through this stuff.
Electricity looks pretty even. Higher in Europe but they can afford that.
I don't agree that them actually doing an entire draft rewrite can just be characterized as them considering a rewrite.
>I don't think the Zig team is concerned at all.
I wonder if that's the mentality that got them in this situation in the first place.
I think if changes will happen in this direction it will be around formal verification, it's more difficult to trust LLM generated code if you aren't completely brainroted on press releases, and traditionally formal verification was seen as more effort than it's worth, but a tool that's great that generating insane amounts of text is quite well suited to formally verifying code, and assuming you can figure out how to make the specification readable to people, you just don't (in theory) need to ever look at the code or the proof, even if it might be helpful to anyways in practice. I'm quite excited the future of software might be fully unhackable software being the standard, with hacking becoming something that's talked about as a brief criminal fad in the beginning of the 21st century, like how you might hear about coin clipping from before fiat currency.
I agree with your point of view in general, but "having tests" doesn't mean "having great tests". If I rewrite my code and give the binary to our clients and they don't see any difference or bug, well, that means the rewrite passed the ultimate test. In fact, the percentage of our clients that care about implementation details (such as PL) is precisely 0%.
https://t3x.org/t3x/0/index.html
https://t3x.org/t3x/0/t3xref.html
Beyond these Curses simple games, there's a 6502 assembler and disassembler among a Kim-1 simulator, Micro Common Lisps and whatnot.
Kinda like write vs printf in C, but easier to grasp. The cheatsheet will help you a lot.
Another thing: setting up the compiler might be cumbersome, I might post a guide soon. I am not the author but making it compile well on some arches can be odd (openbsd/amd64) vs native code (fbsd, 32 bit linux)... nothing complex once you set it up once.
My T3XDIR in the makefile and bin/ scripts it's set to $HOME/t3x0/lib and the bn PATH being set to $HOME/T3XDIR/bin in both Unix env vars and the scripts. It's a 10 minute setup, but after than you will just run
tx0 -c -s file
On Titanic/Supernova, well, it was a former TP game ported to FPC, is not very complex, and tons of stuff could map 1:1 to t3x. The game might be too big for CP/M but for DOS it would be ideal (even by using the T3X 'big' libraries).
The bundled cheatsheet (make will generate a cheatsheet.pdf file if you have groff) might help you. For instance, gotoxy can be written in T3X as con.move(x,y). You need to import the console library as:
use console: con;
Have fun.
Seems like their luck finally ran out. For the longest time, they were getting all kinds of passes, as if a post 1.0 language, that others don't get. 10 years is quite a long time not to hit 1.0 or still be into beta breaking changes. Though I think that (the luck) was significantly aided by their perpetual and odd HN boosting.
> While bounds checking, improved argument passing, typed pointers, proper strings and arrays are an improvement over C, it still suffers from use after free cases.
While Zig was a bit safer and more modern C alternative, safety was arguably not so much their selling point. Plenty of other C alternative languages are equally or more safe. Dlang and Vlang, both now having optional GCs and ownership, are examples.
Now you can get most of it via C# AOT or Swift, with much better ecosystem.
Still, it is part of the official GCC and LLVM frontends, so there is that.
Your kind of negativity is pathological.
Underestimating how quickly a non-trivial project will come together is an almost unheard of phenomenon. It used to invariably be the other way around, to the point that there are laws about it, like Hofstadter's Law, which says that projects always take longer than anticipated, even when accounting for the law itself. Or Fred Brooks' work, which puts limits on how much the development of software projects can be sped up.
The sane takeaway here is that if what's being reported is true (keeping in mind it's coming from a newly minted Anthropic employee), it implies an astonishing, unheard of improvement in software development speed, at least for certain kinds of tasks, enabled by LLMs.
To somehow twist that into "experts may not be as skilled and knowledgeable as they appear" or "not skilled in the tools they’re using" makes me think of the Charles Babbage quote, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such [an opinion]."
In addition, a core Zig developer has explained why the PR was rejected, because it would introduce non-deterministic bugs into the compiler, just to achieve a speedup Zig is already gaining thanks to recent work on the self-hosted backend and incremental compilation, which are far more general as well.
As often happens, the online discourse has, for some reason, decided that this was an anti-AI stance, while - as far as I understand - the problem was simply that the PR had problems, which lead to Bun forking Zig.
But I meant that my comment is "politics-based and not technical", because the gut feeling is more based on my reading of soft factors than it is from in-depth technical analysis of everything involved.
You're right, a rewrite is in existence, and whether it is good enough to be used or expand upon is what is being considered. I don't think that changes the fact that languages don't live or die by whether or not 1 large project using them continues using them. Especially a language like Zig which has taken plenty time making breaking changes. They know this is par for the course.
>I wonder if that's the mentality that got them in this situation in the first place.
I highly doubt it. To my knowledge, the only "why" Jarred has given is frustration with memory issues. Speculated reasons I see are: 1. Anthropic wants a rewrite to a language with a more favorable AI contribution policy, to avoid bad press by acquiring a framework written in a language that is skeptical of AI code quality. 2. Rust is more stable and a better target for AI-assisted programming or entire vibe coding. 3. Bun is upset Zig does not want to merge their fork into main.
Focusing on the issue Jarred gave as why he started the rewrite, I don't see how Zig got themselves into the situation at all. Zig was always upfront that it aimed to be a modern C: simple language, powerful modern features, and excellent compatibility with all things C. While it certainly has much better behavior concerning memory safety and undefined behavior, it has never aimed for Rust or GC level memory safety.
It's not like Jarred has been begging the Zig devs to implement language changes to make Bun development easier. Zig was always upfront that you will have to manage memory manually, and that allows for operator error. I think Jarred is in this situation because he wants to be, simply. He works for Anthropic, probably has no limit on how many tokens he spends, and may have access to their most powerful internal models like Mythos. I would guess he pointed agents at this problem and let them go, because why not? He has likely has no opportunity cost.
Huh? The patch that Bun submitted was for Zig was about compilation times, and making Zig's type resolution faster. I am sure the Bun developer who is submitting patches to Zig is well aware that manual memory management is a core tenet of Zig. The issue is that Zig has to "pick a struggle"; When using C, you manage all of the memory yourself, and get blazing fast compile and run times. In Rust, Rust uses the borrow checker to reduce the amount of memory safety bugs, however Rust can also have slower compile times due to this. Why would it make sense to use a language that is not helping you manage memory and is slow to compile, especially if you submit a patch to the language to address the issue and get rebuffed?
Yes, obviously you can write high-quality software in Zig. But does Zig categorically reject the kind of bugs Bun was suffering from? Rust does.
Now C does have some aspects which make it more prone to crashes and memory bugs. The less strong statement of "using C results in a higher propensity for crashes/memory bugs than Rust" is absolutely true, I would argue. And both C++ and Rust inherit some (but not all, and not the same) of the aspects which make C prone to memory bugs. (So does Go, I would argue, but less than C++ and Zig.)
That seems like an especially wild guess. If you take e.g. Opus 4.7 prices, and make the assumption that you are consuming roughly $30 for every million tokens of output (this comes from just summing the $25 per million tokens of output and $5 per million tokens of input and assuming that caching basically makes all that work out), and assume an output rate of 80 tokens per second (which seems like a high estimate based on online searching), it would take you about 2411 days of non-stop Opus 4.7 usage to hit 500k in API spend.
The only way you could possibly run that amount of usage in 6 days is if you were running ~400 instances in parallel. From personal experience, that seems crazy high for this project.
I think you are off by at least an order of magnitude (potentially even 2 depending on how the person is managing agents, but I could see something like dozens of agents 24/7, so I'm way less confident in 2, but I think it's still more likely to be closer to 10-20k in API spend).
~7x overcompute * ~7x real cost to Anthropic * your 10-20k estimate for consumer use is my thought for actual total cost. If the honeymoon period runs out and they're still in business, this is what everyone will pay.
(And the profit from selling GPUs isn't haves versus have nots, it's a couple companies versus the entire world.)
Being able to afford half a million doesn't mean you do it on a whim, or just throw all of that away if things don't go well.
But what do I know. I am nothing compared to our AI overlords like Anthropic.
If I go beyond the initial vetting, that's a minimum of 30+ projects multiplied by however many contributors each. Without even mentioning all of their sub dependencies. It's a pipe dream to think you can ever have a complete picture of the motivations and political machinations of your entire dependency tree.
Hyperbole, yeah, but top 10% undesirable leads is literally thousands of people?
I couldn't imagine following the communities of even the top ten dependencies of one of our (many) projects very deeply. Every single one of them is having divisive conversations in threads like this all the time that never really lead anywhere or sum up to anything meaningful.
In the past at least you could assume the maintainers of the runtime had some kind of mental model of how it worked. In my view, with the way this rewrite has been approached, you can't assume that at all. It's good the test suite passes, but who knows how this will affect the evolution of the codebase? Do we even know if the code is good? How much is just slop? Tests do not test architecture. Is this new rewrite even going to be maintainable? How is the team going to get up to speed on a new codebase in a new language that the main author presumably doesn't even fully understand?
There are many reasons to be concerned. Treating this as no big deal would make me question one's ability to make assessments of technology. There's a world of difference between relying on gen AI heavily in products and leaf nodes of the stack, using it in a purely assistive way, and using it to drive a massive scale rewrite of a base component in a language the maintains team has an unproven amount of experience with. From a reliability standpoint the way this project was executed is completely preposterous, and it's very clearly a marketing stunt more than a sound technical decision on how to drive a project. It's not about the use of LLMs, it's about thee stupid and blatantly obvious generation of cognitive debt all to help sell claude. I'd have way fewer qualms if they used LLMs to do a rewrite in a way that retained developer understanding (i.e. not driven by one person and in such a short timespan that having a robust mental model, even for that person, is highly unlikely)
From any reasonable perspective, this is business as usual in the house of cards we all operate in. Perhaps the sensationalization would be justified if the lang migration wasn't one of less correct -> enforced correctness by default?
To your point in general about maintainers holding a mental model of the runtime: I would challenge that to say that it is very likely that there is no developer who holds a complete mental model of an entire runtime at any given point. As with anything of this scale you understand individual parts in their entirety and have general assertions about the rest until specifically revisited, even if you are the sole developer. In this case specifically, Bun has been largely AI driven for quite a while anyway so it is even more unlikely that the developers ever had a complete picture in the first place. If you trusted them before, then nothing has changed.
It's not lost on me that code logic can be subtly incorrect even as tests are passing either, but there isn't exactly a lot of grey area in this particular context. Does your code compile or not? If it builds as expected, then your own unit tests will highlight the difference.
It's a good demonstration of capabilities, sure, but the result itself makes no sense. We'll have to figure out where these capabilities can bring real advantage
The industry as a whole still is realizing that any LLM usage that actually writes all the code for you is causing cognitive debt, and we’re even slowly losing our skills of the art.
I’m trying my best to navigate this myself, but no matter what we do, using LLMs is both a blessing and a curse.
I don't think that is the case here. Bun is pretty much using AI to write all of it's code, with a human reviewing it. Zig exists as a language to provide a nice DX over C and Rust, not to be memory safe. If you are using an LLM to generate code, the DX benefits are removed and so then why would you ever choose Zig over Rust?
* I can agive you one quarter of amazing profits, if you let me dismantle and sell all the assets of a company.
* I can give you a few years of incredible food production, if you let me strip a rainforest and plant commercial crops.
* I can give you incredibly cheap energy, if you let me mine non renewing fossil fuels from the earth.
The context of why something is possible matters. In this case, because a very large and comprehensive test suite was seen as a necessity to specify a successful project (managed by humans). I do not believe a LLM coded project could ever have made such a test suite. In this case, the LLM is consuming the result of expensive human labor (the test suite) to make what ultimately is a minor variation to it (the implementation language).
Arena allocators are a great way to automatically manage memory allocations. You malloc a whole bunch of memory and release it all with a single free, which makes it much easier to reason about your program's memory safety.
Casey Muratori has a good video talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt1KNDmOYqA
And about Zig, you have an Arena Allocator out of the box: https://zig.guide/standard-library/allocators/ . And it's not just limited to that, you have debug allocators that detects memory leaks and gives you stack traces where they occurred.
This isn't to say that Zig is great at everything. I think Rust is great for things like kernels, high-frequency trading systems, and authentication servers where memory safety and performance is paramount. But for things like video games, memory leaks and buffer overflows aren't that big of a deal, and Zig's "Good Enough" approach is great for those types of applications.
Video games are large and have lots of state and lots of threads. Zig's lack of ownership here with fully manual memory management is overall a poor fit.
People want to use stuff like this as somehow evidence for AI being able to write entire software systems in a few days. We saw the same shit with the "compiler" they made with a bunch of agents. Literally the only reason it's possible is because the hundreds of thousands of man hours and God knows how much money that was poured into the reference projects befoes the AI got anywhere near it.
To replicate this kind of thing with a green field project would take an absolute ton of spec work and requirements derivation, which will substantially eat into any savings from having AI generate it.
The accomplishment itself is interesting, and unlocks opportunities to do work no one would have bothered with before, but it doesn't represent what a lot of people desperately want it to.
Pocket calculator also can multiply numbers much faster than engineer, it doesn't make it engineer itself..
RAII has entered the chat.
One of the reasons WebSQL died was due to how many memory bug related vulnerabilities SQLite had.
Most of us what to avoid the circus.
Jared, the hacker is now replaced by Jared, the millionaire soon to be billionaire as Anthropic valuation keeps going up.
I’ve been thinking about setting up a non trivial project to use as a benchmark for any plugins and/or harness changes I make.
Having a prebuilt verification suite is great. You can use it to asses things like token usage, time, across different harnesses, models, plugins.
The marketing opportunity here is in promoting Claude Code, not giving a smackdown to Andrew Kelley (who vanishingly few people who throw around millions of dollars on AI contracts have heard of).
Insert something about monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare here.
You're right, other things constant, this would not make sense. But this is a strawman. Zig has fast compilation on average compared to systems languages with more automatic memory management, like Rust. In addition, Bun's fork is based on 0.14 Zig, while 0.16 has become much faster.
Take a look at this post by one of Zig's core maintainers explaining why Zig doesn't want to upstream any changes from the Bun fork: https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio....
In short, the Bun fork introduces non-deterministic compilation errors, a terrible problem for a language and its compiler to have. Zig just made changes to type resolution in 0.16 specifically to allow them to implement parallel semantic analysis, but properly without the bug the Bun fork has.
In addition, they have chosen to spend their time building the self-hosted backend and perfecting incremental compilation, which will have orders of magnitude more benefits to compile times than. Matthew already demonstrates a 4x speedup, what Bun claims to achieve, using the self-hosted backend, and 300x speedups with incremental compilation on a large project (Zig itself).
I am sure it is frustrating for Jarred to not get his patch in, but he was rebuffed for good reason. Bun's fork may have worked for them but many people, including the Zig team, would rather Zig do things properly than introduce bugs and tech debt to make flashy headlines.
Perfect, $1mil in salaries to spare the company $500k in spend :)
Nobody is spending $1mil in salary on this kind of PoCs.
And I guess the word "small" is really difficult to grasp.
I am of the opinion that it is horses for courses and not a universal better proposition.
Because my needs don’t fit in with Rust’s decisions very well I will use zig for personal projects when needed. I just need linked lists, graphs etc…
While hopefully someone can provide a more comprehensive explanation here are the two huge wins for my use case.
1) In Zig, accessing an array or slice out of bounds is considered detectable illegal behavior.
2) defer[0] allows you to collocate the the freeing of resources with code.
That at least ‘feels’ safer to me than a bunch of ‘unsafe’ rust that is required for my very specific use case.
I was working on some eBPF code in C and did really miss zig.
For me it fits the Pareto principle but zig is also just a sometimes food for me, so take that for what it is worth.
I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Rust and outside of FFI, I've written I think one line of unsafe Rust.
And you can't forget to type defer
If I open a file, eventually I want to close it. If I allocate some memory, eventually I want to deallocate it.
Any programming language design that intentionally puts the onus BY DEFAULT on the user to *not forget to manually do something* is honestly asinine.
Defer has a place (I do use defer in C++, in fact you can implement it with RAII, proving that RAII is strictly more powerful/more flexible), but the default should be the safest and most straightforward option.
Also "magic-sauce that does a lot for you" is just false. It's literally a function call injected at the end of a scope.
It gives you a few more tools than C - like a debug allocator, bounds checked array slices and so on. But it’s not a memory safe language like rust.
Its an interesting idea. But if you want static memory safety in a low level systems language, its probably much easier to just use rust.
MSVC has a debug allocator since at least Visual Studio 5.
Zig is still under development and beta. Stability, crashes, and leaks should not be surprising, and even expected. To stick with a beta language, usually companies and developers are philosophically and/or financially aligned with the language. An example is JangaFX and Odin, where they not only have committed to using the language (despite being beta) in their products, but have directly hired GingerBill.
Team Bun appears to have "alignment and relationship issues" with Zig, to the point they have decided to extensively explore their options. Now Bun is rewritten in Rust. They are seeing if Rust solves their requirements. As with any relationship, if one ignores or takes a partner for granted, don't be surprised if they want a divorce or jump to someone else.
This maneuver was arguably obfuscated by the anti-LLM stance and finger pointing at Microsoft, but nevertheless, many still have noticed. Zig, for a long time, had been falling behind and doing poorly on their open to close ratio for resolving issues. It should be embarrassing to leave so many issues open.
Even if not accepting new GitHub issues, they have demonstrated an inability to resolve existing issues, except at an extremely slow pace. Considering there are just about no new issues on their GitHub repo, it is understandable if there are those that find the pace to close and amount of issues unacceptable or questionable, in addition to the clearly bad open to close ratio.
Believe it or not, for some of us it’s not “the whole damn point”.
I don't think it is fair to claim computers are about putting people out of jobs.
- Video games
- Medical device firmware
- Synthesizers
- Detailed universe-scale physics simulations
- Mars rover control software
- The Linux kernel
It’s not that anthropic/google/openai/etc are unavoidable
Every tech you mentioned is absolutely governed by multibillion dollar companies. Something like 75-85% of OSS code is contributed by employees doing their day job. Most Linux and Postgres contributions come from those same employees. HTTP and TCP/IP are managed by standard bodies and industry working groups that, you guessed it, are governed by multibillion dollar companies. Red Hat and IBM are responsible for 40-60% of contributions to Qemu.
Some of the inner circle move to corporations to increase their power and are joined by corporate developers (sometimes their bosses) to take over the project.
A lot of corporate OSS development are entirely unnecessary rewrites or simple things like release management. So I'd put the number of useful code by employees much lower.
But governed, hell yeah, I agree. The corporations crack the whip and oppress real contributors.
> Which is really not that many places, it's a fast but rather niche optimization. There's not a whole lot of scenarios where lots of temporary memory is needed for one well defined scope.
Arena allocators are not niche optimizations, or not something picked first for optimization. Contrary to what you said, arenas are useful for temporary allocations with poorly defined intermediate scope or lifetime (think functions directly or indirectly called by the arena owner). If the scope is local and well-defined, a regular allocator or even a fixed buffer would do just fine.
> Zig's lack of ownership
Zig doesn't have explicit annotations for it, but the concept of ownership and lifetime doesn't go away. It's not enforced by the compiler, which is an intentional tradeoff to let the programmer have more control and freedom. When you use languages with manual memory management, it's expected that you are capable of designing sensible programs in such a way that ownership and lifetimes are tractable and are part of the program design, rather than something to workaround to please the compiler.
Right, it's exactly like C, and we kinda all know how that worked out in practice already...
Hence why I called Zig a "love letter to C". If all you want is C with a dash of zest, that's Zig. If you want a modern language that has learned from the many hard lessons the industry has dealt with over the years... well, Zig ain't it. Which is a perfectly fine thing for Zig to be, it doesn't have to be a good general purpose language. We have plenty of those already from Rust to Go to Java/C#/Kotlin to etc...
> arenas are useful for temporary allocations with poorly defined intermediate scope or lifetime (think functions directly or indirectly called by the arena owner).
Arenas are not good for that because the arena as a whole has to outlive all of those poorly defined scopes & lifetimes, which is hard to do. Especially if you later go add on something like an retry-with-backoff or asynchronous metrics/tracing or caching or whatever. Then suddenly you're either fighting use-after-frees or doing deep-copying of data.
Production operating systems have been written in C, along the with the countless tooling, libraries and game engines (which you said are a poor fit for manual memory management) that modern systems depend on. I say it worked out it pretty well.
And zig did learn from the hard lessons from the industry and fixes a lot of problems with C. It also has a lot of affordances that makes it more than suitable for general purpose use.
> Arenas are not good for that because the arena as a whole has to outlive all of those poorly defined scopes & lifetimes, which is hard to do.
I don't what else to tell you, arenas outliving temporary allocations is exactly what it is made for, they go poof as soon as the arena owner is done. That's not hard, it makes it easier if anything. To give concrete examples, arenas are used on HTTP requests that are clean up in one go as soon as the request is done. They are also used on (possibly deep) recursive functions that are cleaned up as soon as the root function returns. Of course, you don't store arena-allocated memory elsewhere that outlives the arena, that would be dumb.
That's why you have to be consciously aware of the ownership and lifetimes that a piece of memory has. Ownership and lifetimes are just one part of the API contract of a function or module. You break it, that's on you. Having a compiler help with ownership model would be nice, but it's a not substitute for having a good mental model of your programs. It's not that different from the tradeoff of a having a less strict type system. Not every sanity check can or has to be performed at compile time. Zig also has debug allocators that catches a lot of memory mismanagement during testing. Hard to debug double-frees, use-after-frees and other things are a symptom of poor cavalier YOLO programming.
That all said, I do agree that manual memory management is really hard to do if you are used to just sweeping gigabytes of memory under rug, hoping the GC vacuum cleaner slurps it afterwards. It takes a mindset and a set of practice. But once you internalized it, it becomes second nature.
(Not to sound like a zig fanboy, I do think it's still rough around the edge and there are a lot of things I don't like. But manual memory management is not that big of a problem).
How does one accomplish change? Even being a martyr doesn't get traction. As far as I can tell, you need to already be powerful. Nobody lets you into that group if you're not aligned with said group.
Protests (at least in their current form) don't work. Trying to assassinate someone doesn't move the needle (also not the play, I don't support murder), vocal grassroots leaders are no longer relevant at all, if they ever were.
How does one accomplish any change?
I would have agreed with this like 15 years ago, but the very existence of Twitter (and the acquisition saga) proves this to not be true.
Definitely not true, they tend to care more than most.
Many garbage collection algorithms can deal with cycles.
> It’s engineering.
Significantly, but not totally. The marketing value can't be ignored.
Saying you have no intention of doing something then doing it is not engineering, it's being dishonest. He could have said "well decide when we see the results", why didn't he?
Saying you don't intend to do something and then doing it is free will.
It's also lying. They are not mutually exclusive.
One must stick to old assertions forever!
Giant foot is gonna squish us!"
...this forum is as bad as a single backwater sub Reddit.
I am so sick of emotionally frail software engineers. I don't know why I keep bothering floating back here every once in a while to see what is up.
Same old rustled jimmies over technology evolution like back during the emacs and vi! tabs vs spaces! Sysv init vs systemd!
Super hero power scaling message boards are more engaging than this site.
AI save us from these needlessly economically empowered labor exploiting non-contributor script kiddies. Such an unserious community.
Changing your mind is okay, for example if someone said it was impossible to do the migration with current LLMs and it turns out they did it in four days, that person can and should admit they were wrong. That's not what he did though. What he did is say he had no intention of doing it, and then did it. That is lying. If he was testing and he didn't know if the change was going to be worth it, he could have said for example:
"This branch is a test, it's not a given it will work so until we see the results we won't decide if we'll be migrating or not."
He didn't say anything like that though, he basically said:
"We have no intention to migrate."
Why did he said the latter and not the former? Because he wasn't being honest, he was just trying to get people off his back, and so he didn't say what he was doing, the best for his own interest. We have a saying in my country: "it's easier to catch a liar than someone who's lame".
Also, before you come and say but he said he had no "intention" not that he wasn't gonna do it. A five year old might think that's a valid argument, but this person is an adult and we're all adults here, so it's not, it's equivocation and it's a logical fallacy.
> I am so sick of emotionally frail software engineers.
Then don't look in the mirror, you're probably being the biggest crybaby in this thread so far.
What would the emerging odds be? My guess is 19/20 in favor of ditching Zig.
I have followed many initial denials on a wide range of topics, not only rewrites, over the years. Like clockwork, most of them were lies.
Even if it passed the full test suite there are a ton of software qualities that are not captured by tests and I think it's unlikely the AI made the right trade-off in every such case.
* We haven't seen the benchmarks yet.
* It hasn't seen wide usage. Zig Bun has had tons of bugs ironed out, Rust Bun has a different set of bugs to iron out.
* The developers know the zig codebase well, they don't know the rust code base.
In short, I'm accusing you of doing a motte-and-bailey.
I am less motte-and-bailey'ing, and you are more not subscribing to the principal of charity, choosing to interpret the original comment as its weakest possible version rather than the strongest.
Game engines moved to C++ over 20 years ago.
Most major compilers are also in C++, including GCC (it switched over a decade ago). Which means the two largest C compilers are themselves not written in C. They have un-bootstrapped.
> That all said, I do agree that manual memory management is really hard to do if you are used to just sweeping gigabytes of memory under rug, hoping the GC vacuum cleaner slurps it afterwards. It takes a mindset and a set of practice. But once you internalized it, it becomes second nature.
Sorry, but no, you cannot internalize this. Nobody can. Once a program grows past some point, purely manual memory management & "git gud" are simply not practical. The amount of evidence against this is beyond any doubt.
Zig's emphasis on cross compilation seems like it's a better fit for embedded than anything else, which is where things shouldn't realistically grow to be huge projects, but with how coding efficiency (or lack thereof) works today along with microcontrollers getting ever more powerful... who knows.
you can make a no-op function that gets compiled out but survives AIR
> rust knows when it can Drop.
and its possible to cause problems if you aren't aware where rust picks to dropp.
> And rust can put noalias everywhere in emitted code.
zig has noalias and it should be posssible to do alias tracking as a refinement.
> But if you want static memory safety in a low level systems language, its probably much easier to just use rust.
don't use that attitude to suck oxygen out of the air. rust comes with its own baggage, so "just using rust because its the only choice" keeps you in a local minimum.
Can you give some examples? I've never ran into problems due to this.
> don't use that attitude to suck oxygen out of the air. rust comes with its own baggage
Yeah, that's a totally fair argument. One nice aspect of the approach you're proposing is it'd give you the opportunity to explore more of the borrow checker design space. I'm convinced there's a giant forest of different ways we could do compile time memory safety. Rust has gone down one particular road in that forest. But there's probably loads of other options that nobody has tried yet. Some of them will probably be better than rust - but nobody has thought them through yet.
I wish you luck in your project! If you land somewhere interesting, I hope you write it up.
If it's doing a drop in the hot loop that may be an unexpected performance regression that could be carefully lifted.
thank you. Unfortunately in the last few weeks i've been too busy with my startup to put as much work into it. We'll see =D
I'm guessing that if I said it ... that we have no intention of re-writing in rust ... that what I mean is "we have no intention of spending the extreme cost it would take to rewrite". When I discover the cost model is completely different that changes things.
If you mean "we have no intention of spending the extreme cost it would take to rewrite" then say that, and it would be fine. If you instead say "we have no intention of re-writing in rust" you've said something very different, using a different set of words, which changes the meaning. Especially, if you say it directly in response to someone asking you whether you're going to rewrite or not like was the case here, and say that there's a high chance you'll just be throwing it away, to get the other person off your back. If then you go ahead and do it, expect them to call you out for it.
This is a very simple concept that can generally be understood by children at around age 4. Trying to cover it with vague terms and using the defence of "well I said I had no intention, and I probably won't do it but you see, I saw the results so I changed my mind so the chance was small but not zero", that's what a slightly older kid will try to do to see if they can get away with it, and as any kid discovers, that doesn't fly.
The fact that you can explicitly invoke the destructor to happen later is simply syntactic sugar, just like if/else/while, or any other control construct more powerful than a conditional jump instruction.
defer is a perfectly general structured flow concept; it only cares about when you do something, and is completely orthogonal to what you need to accomplish.
When you explicitly invoke a "destructor", you do it on many code paths (and miss one or two)
>The fact that you can explicitly invoke the destructor to happen later
You don't specify where the `defer`-red "destructor" will be invoked.
Unless, of course, you do it inside a defer block.
> You don't specify where the `defer`-red "destructor" will be invoked.
Yes, actually, you do. It is patently obvious, by code inspection, where the destructor, or anything else specified in a deferred block, will be invoked. defer is a perfectly cromulent part of structured control flow, allowing for easy reasoning about when things occur without having to calculate an insane number of permutations of conditional branch instructions.
Protests don’t immediately solve everything, but I think looking at 2026 and concluding they don’t move the needle at all is a weird take. There are recent examples of protest movements (especially long-term ones) working all over the world.
The onus is on you to prove your point, not me to disprove it.
* Vikor Orban was just ousted by a popular protest movement. This took years due to structural electoral issues but it did work eventually. And it wouldn’t if the people opposing him gave up because they didn’t change anything right away.
* The US ICE protests (and the federal government’s insane overreaction to them) let to the head of DHS being fired and a quantifiable drop in ICE activity (e.g. arrests and number of people currently detained).
* Nepal’s protests last year led to the resignation of the prime minister and a resounding electoral victory this year for their opponents.
Protests aren’t magic win buttons, especially because even the people protesting don’t fully agree on exactly what “winning” looks like. But they accomplish more than acting out your emotions on the internet.
More handwaving about the LLM hype machine is incredibly boring and enough of it is spewed everywhere that whatever social good it was going to accomplish must have already happened by now. If you want to inject reality into the situation, talk about reality (like Anthropic is at least pretending to).
So cash out before that.
Also I already cashed out, jokes on you.
His point was that for his programming, he wants to be able to make real pointers and real linked lists with memory unsafe, which Rust makes difficult or opaque. For example with linked list, you could simulate (to avoid unsafe), by either boxing everything (so all refs are actually smart pointers), or you can use a container with scoped memory lifetime, and have integers in an array that are the "next" pointer. In addition to extra complexity, the "integers as edges" doesn't actually solve the complexity, it just means you can't get a bad memory error (you can still have 'pointers' that point to the wrong index if you're rolling your own).
Same with your graph code. Using a COO representation for a graph does in theory make it "memory safe" (albeit more clumsy to use if you are doing pointer-following logic), and it also introduces other subtle bugs if your logic is wrong (e.g. you have edge 100 but actually those nodes were removed, so now you're pointing at the wrong node).
I think the point (which I agree with for things like linked list, graph, compiler) is that depending on your usecase, the "safety" guarantees of rust are just making it harder to write the simplest most understandable code. Now instead of: `Node* next` I have lifetimes, integer references, two collections (nodes and edges) to keep in sync, smart pointers, etc. Previously my complexity was to make sure `next != null`, now its a ton of boilerplate and abstractions, performance hits, or more subtle bugs (like 'next' indices getting out of sync with the array of 'nodes').
If there was a way to explicitly track the lifetime of an arbitrary graph/tree of pointers at compile time, we wouldn't need garbage collection -- its not solvable at compile time, and the complexity has to live somewhere.
This is not actually a different kind of bug; it's just use-after-free, which you can of course get when using pointers instead of indices.
Actually it's slightly safer than pointer use-after-free because it is type safe and there's no UB.
Also some of the Rust arenas give you keys (equivalent to pointers) which can check for this. There's a good list here (see "ABA mitigation"):
What are you asking for exactly?
I guess you are making the point that the user does not have to concern themselves with the unsafe declarations?
Yes, in the same way that there's a difference between using `std::Vec` (which uses `unsafe`), and writing an unsafe Vec class yourself.
Or even the difference between using Python (which wraps an unsafe CPython implementation), and doing everything in unsafe Python code.
The difference is that widely used code like CPython and `std::Vec` are much much better tested and audited than anything I would write myself, because so many people use them. This is a continuum so something like petgraph is going to be not as well tested as std::Vec but still way better tested than anything I've written.
You're correcting someone, so it's clear that your understanding isn't universal, and example code is the absolute minimum.
- Medical device firmware - hardware control layer for medical devices, which are used to aid in medical procedures.
- Synthesizers - help to make music.
- Detailed universe-scale physics simulations - help to make certain physics problems more tractable.
- Mars rover control software - helps to remote control rovers.
- The Linux kernel - control layer that sits between firmware and actual applications, pretty much just a common shared library so apps don't have to each ship with a full stack.
I don't really see your point here. None of these examples counter the argument that software is created to automate human labour as much as is practical.
Video games are an interesting category since they're entirely enabled by software: I can't imagine anyone driving a video game manually (note I don't consider things like Chess, etc software to be video games in this context; more things like FPS, racing, etc). I do remember as a kid I thought that there were actually little people doing the stuff in video games though.
The parent comment said "to do something that a human does/did", so I tried to come up with a diverse list of software that performs functions humans hadn't/couldn't've done.
> software is created to automate human labour as much as is practical
That's certainly a reason software is created, but not the only reason.
> Medical device firmware - hardware control layer for medical devices, which are used to aid in medical procedures.
I should've been more specific, maybe "MRI scanner firmware". Lots of medical devices could not exist without software.
> Synthesizers - help to make music.
Yes, they "help to make music", but synthesizers can produce sounds that humans cannot produce by themselves. If the upthread comment were about technology broadly rather than software specifically, I could've written "saxophones" here.
> Detailed universe-scale physics simulations - help to make certain physics problems more tractable.
"More tractable", or "tractable at all"? Simulations that would take 100 human lifetimes to compute on paper weren't even attempted before.
> Mars rover control software - helps to remote control rovers.
This clearly wasn't ever done without software, so I don't think I understand your response. I can't even imagine how it could have been done without software (my first ridiculous thought is very long cables going from Earth to Mars mechanically controlling a rover, but even if we had a magical material that'd enable that, the cables would get tangled up as the planets move).
> The Linux kernel - control layer that sits between firmware and actual applications, pretty much just a common shared library so apps don't have to each ship with a full stack.
I thought the pushback on this would be "this is just an implementation detail to let us run other software, so it shouldn't count". I don't think I understand your response here either.
---
I guess my general reaction is: sure, if you broaden the criteria enough then you can interpret most anything as "something that a human does/did". Like: humans "have fun" and therefore video games don't count, or humans can jump therefore they "travel through the air" therefore airplanes are just "doing something that humans do". But I don't think this reading of the upthread comment leads to interesting discussion.
I don't think there's anything out there that a computer can do but humans can't do per se. Whether it's manually doing what an MRI does, or sending people with the Mars rover. It would be anything from tedious/inefficient through crazy difficult/dangerous to totally impossible at this time (at some point in time it would at least be possible). Though that's just being pedantic, especially re video games.
> "this is just an implementation detail to let us run other software, so it shouldn't count"
That's essentially what I said, but in different words.
The main point in my original reply was to question the point of software creation, if not to stand in for human capability, wholly or partially. I don't see people creating software explicitly to just let it gather dust for example, even though that happens very often.
All of these things existed in pre computer form.
A scheduler used to be a person putting punch cards into a machine.
> If you broaden the criteria enough then you can interpret most anything as "something that a human does/did". Like: humans "have fun" and therefore video games don't count, or humans can jump therefore they "travel through the air" therefore airplanes are just "doing something that humans do". But I don't think this reading of the upthread comment leads to interesting discussion.
I'd be happy to discuss specific examples of the "pre computer forms", if you provide some.
Computer used to mean "human who does math". Before machine computers, we had human computers. Machine computers replaced all of these human computers.
Are you referring to the developer's/organization's motivations? Maybe this is a proximate-vs-ultimate-cause sort of thing, but people are also motivated to create software by a desire to express themselves, to win competitions, to stave off boredom, to commit crimes, to prove theorems, to earn money, to show off, to learn things, and so on.
I write software to automate away plenty of my own activities (and occasionally others' too), but even when counting things like test suites, build scripts, etc, I'd estimate that less than a third of the code I've written was because I sat down at the keyboard thinking "I want to replace a human capability".
The first thing that comes to mind is complex calculations that need to happen within a certain time budget to be useful. Like, sure, I could "play GTA 5" by sending each of my inputs to a room full of mathematicians frantically doing calculations who then instruct artists how to paint the next frame to send back to me[0], but even if you could somehow get that to run at 1 frame per day, I'd argue that's not really "playing GTA 5" anymore (a core aspect of the game is reacting to things in real time). For a more tangible scenario, imagine trying to pilot a quadcopter by manually controlling each actuator individually (there's no way you could do that quickly/accurately enough to avoid crashing).
[0]: Also this is arguably still "a computer", just one with an unconventional architecture.
Yeah, I've heard of people being surprised that when they make massive collections of Box'ed entries, then get surprised that it takes a long time to Drop the whole thing. But this would be the same in C or Zig too. Malloc and free are really complex functions. Reducing heap allocations is an essential tool for optimisation.
The solution to this "unexpected performance regression" in rust is the same as it is in C, C++ and Zig: Stop heap allocating so much. Use primitive types, SSO types (SmartString and friends in rust) or memory arenas. Drop isn't the problem.
I understand zig's philosophy here. But I prefer rust's default behaviour.