• SwooshBakery624 [they/them]@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

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

      • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        3 months ago

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

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

      • mamg22@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

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

        • Ghoelian@piefed.socialEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

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

          • mamg22@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

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

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

            The future of software development, ladies and gentlemen

            Edit: rust safety

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