This decision seems to based more in politics than engineering. Have you observed Bun have more segfaults, OOMs, etc, since the Rust rewrite? Have you noticed more security vulnerabilities? Have you seen more bugs? (Of course you haven't, the rewrite hasn't even landed yet.) It seems that you are making this decision because you get a bad feeling when thinking about AI involvement.<p>I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling - I select them because they do the thing I want them to. If Bun starts having more bugs and feeling like worse software, I'll stop using it. But I will base that on data -- not a feeling I have. Jarred has done a lot of impressive stuff with Bun, and it seems unlikely he would ship this rewrite if it didn't meet his quality bar - I am willing to see him out here.
> Have you observed Bun have more segfaults, OOMs, etc, since the Rust rewrite? Have you noticed more security vulnerabilities? Have you seen more bugs? (Of course you haven't, the rewrite hasn't even landed yet.)<p>On the flip side it's not on the yt-dlp authors to test Bun's new development process and see if it results in more segfaults, OOMs, security vulnerabilities, etc. In fact it would arguably be negligent to experiment on your users if you thought there was a reasonable probability of increased security vulnerabilities.<p>I think there's a good argument that the responsible thing to say would be "we aren't going to immediately support running our software on a new bun release cut from main right now".<p>It seems a bit unfortunate to me that they've apparently already intending to never support future releases instead of planning on re-evaluating in the future. On the other hand the yt-dlp developers definitely don't owe anyone anything.
> It seems a bit unfortunate to me that they've apparently already intending to never support future releases instead of planning on re-evaluating in the future. On the other hand the yt-dlp developers definitely don't owe anyone anything.<p>I think your final comment gets at it. If they said "OK, I am skeptical, so we're going to pause on updating to see how this Rust thing plays out" -- that sounds like a reasonable engineering decision. Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.
> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.<p>I disagree that this is a political stance. People based on their experiences have formed opinions on whether they trust that model of development or not. Bun having taking extreme measure of going 100% in within a week is itself extreme positioning from their side which will likely result in extreme reactions because depending on who you are and your experience you'd bet on the fact that it may or may not work out.
I disagree as well, and wonder if the OP meant an emotional or ideological stance instead.
In all sincerity, what does political even mean in this context? ELI5, I’m a toddler when it comes to the politics of AI/LLMs.
Its a polarizing world with AI. There are fanboys drinking the kool-aid blindly listening to whatever Sammy/Dario/... say as gospel, and on other side there are haters who again blindly reject the fact that these AI tools can be actually be useful. I think that's what the politics is.
> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.<p>I don't think "political" is necessarily a bad thing. Engaging in politics is how you shape the world. The mere act of writing and maintaining yt-dlp is quite political considering the context of IP law and enforcement that we live in.<p>It happens that in this case that I'd disagree with their politics if that's why they are dropping Bun support - I think there's a great deal of value in moving to memory safe languages, little harm in accepting anthropic compute and funding to do so, and that use LLMs themselves is roughly value neutral (though many uses are very much not value neutral). That said reasonable people definitely disagree with me.
That's not what I meant by political. I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".<p>EDIT:<p>Everyone is rightfully calling me out that this doesn't make a lot of sense. What I meant is that the move is driven by ideology. I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology, and an increasing amount of overlap between ideology and emotion. But it's fair enough to call me out here.
> I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".<p>I'm not familiar with this definition in any modern or archaic sense. Is there somewhere I can read about it? Just because a decision is not directly engineering related (which I'm not even convinced this is) doesn't mean that it's not thoughtful.
That's fair - I updated my comment a little. What I mean is that the decision was driven by an ideological basis, not an empirical one. Bun was written with AI, AI doesn't fit with my ideology, therefore I reject it. As opposed to Bun has these new problems X Y and Z, therefore I reject it.
The irony of this comment on an app that is:<p>- free and open source, which is an ideology, and that<p>- expands access to otherwise locked down media, which is again an ideological stance
"Political" here means "I don't like it"
I can't see how this counts as "political" or "ideological" by your definition unless you believe that emotion can't exist as part of any decision, in which case you should give up interacting with human beings entirely.<p>Regardless, the decision was 99% logical. In fact, even the emotional parts are laudable. For example, I love software. That's an emotion. If you disagree with that foundation, we will fundamentally never be able to converse with each other about what's best for software.
Wait, expecting all code to be verified and tested by a human is not engineering-driven but instead emotion-driven mindset???
What code is fully, or even primarily, tested by a human? Haven't you heard of automated testing suites, regression testing, conformance testing..?
Test code written by a human counts as "tested by a human". Also, most code is literally tested (manually) by humans in addition to automated tests. You are being pointlessly pedantic.
Bun has a test suite of tens of thousands of tests. For purely non-functional changes, like refactors or rewrites (e.g. a Rust rewrite) I rely primarily on test suites, not manual testing, in order to ensure that nothing regressed. I mean, sure, I am going to poke around, too, but the test suite is the encoding of thousands of obscure bugs and issues over years. There is no way my manual testing will be able to cover the same ground.
If I were to mirror your tone, I'd ask you if you've ever heard of the basic courtesy of running your code manually yourself before you waste anyone else's time with it... Or whether you've heard about QA, or about making demos for Product or for customers...<p>Neither of these can be replaced by an automated test suite of any kind, and all of these are examples of good <i>engineering</i> practices that guarantee software quality.<p>Additionally, even if you don't (need to) adhere to the best <i>engineering</i> practices and instead rely solely on an automated test suite, the tests in this suite must be validated - read and understood - by a human in order to guarantee that they nail down the <i>correct requirements</i>.
[flagged]
That has nothing to do with what "politics" means but it's exactly how people have started using "political" to mean "idea I don't agree with".
I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology, and an increasing amount of overlap between ideology and emotion.<p>I think it's fair to call me out for skipping a step, but I wasn't using it to mean "idea I don't agree with".
Humans have always appealed to emotion - as part of their logical process.<p>Fear (emotion) is used (advantageously) to force us to check that something isn't going to break us<p>In this instance fear is being used to ensure that yt-dlp is not exposed to (genuine) concerns about the quality of bun that is openly being built making use of tools we as a whole know is problematic.<p>I agree with you that the statements are a bit over the top (that's an emotional response to their statements btw) and that (eventually) you would /hope/ that bun gets to a point where it's got some genuine reliability from a users perspective.<p>Edit: I see your edit to explain that the issue is ideology - but unfortunately (perhaps) that's not an improved stance - ideology has to guide us when we just don't know - it's a heuristic.
That's a perfectly cromulent meaning of the word.
Vibe-coded code is a code no human has written, so no human truly understands how it works. It's a perfectly reasonable <i>technical</i> decision not to support such software, especially if actual human effoft is required for that
I wouldn't have problems with AI-generated code, but LLMs are not AIs, they are random sentence generators. They don't have logic, yet programs are logical constructs. So let's call this what it is: randomly-generated code, kinda sorta filtered by humans and tests. It's not because the output distribution has a good match with the expected distribution that it's not random. An LLM that is "hallucinating" is still working perfectly well and isn't doing anything different, in the same way that a straight-line fit through data points isn't "hallucinating" where it isn't overlapping the data points exactly.
> I wouldn't have problems with AI-generated code, but LLMs are not AIs, they are random sentence generators.<p>AI includes a lot of technologies, LLMs being just one of them. Several of these technologies use probabilistic algorithms, so having randomness does not disqualify something from being classified as AI.
I wouldn't say it's random. But I do like referring to them as statistical code generators.
Adding support again later is cheap.<p>Stopping maintaining and testing support for upcoming versions is cheaper than doing that work.<p>Sure it’s political but it is also just a sane approach, to stay away from such disruptive change and treat it as wait-and-see instead of tagging along for the ride. There is not really any technical upside to tagging along and promising support.
> Stopping maintaining and testing support for upcoming versions is cheaper than doing that work.<p>If it’s based on predictions of how some alpha software might turn out in the future then I don’t see how you can claim it’s cheaper.<p>If a bunch of new bug reports came in then you said no, then everyone would understand.<p>This is pretty obviously ideological otherwise. Which is fine, but we shouldn’t pretend otherwise because we might agree with it
I disagree it's a political stance, this reads like a technical decision to me. In my opinion, there is no vibe-coded project that's going to be reliable long term. Eventually there's too much code, too many bugs and the whole things slows to a halt. Or it gets too expensive to continue to be vibe-coded, because token cost.<p>If they had decided to drop Bun for "AI assisted coding," that might strike me as a political decision.
That wasn't my read, though. I think if they don't want to go with the vibe-coded version then they have to go with the last release before that. And presumably that last release won't be updated (except with the vibe-coded version). Therefore it makes sense to deprecate.
What's wrong with yt-dlp - an app almost entirety driven by political stances - taking another one regarding llms?
> It seems a bit unfortunate to me that they've apparently already intending to never support future releases instead of planning on re-evaluating in the future. On the other hand the yt-dlp developers definitely don't owe anyone anything.<p>The other side of this is that as far as I'm aware, Bun support in yt-dlp was always experimental. They mainly use Deno.
It's not really political. Or let me rephrase possibly yt-dl is being political. VUT the concept of 'not adopting a core dependency until it has been widely used in production for 6 months - a year.', is not a political on general. A full rewrite of 1 million loc is essentially a new runtime that has the same ABI as the previous and for many downstream consumers it's not something they are comfortable taking a production dependency on. If for sale of argument BUn was fully rewritten by hand would be the same situation. I personally think this kind of decision is pretty standard, I also personally think the Bun LLM rewrite will be of good quality overall, but I certainly would not bet my product/company on it. I want to be the one making the risky changes on my software not being forced into it by downstream deps.
I think your stance is more reasonable than the one in the article, TBH. If yt-dlp said something like "We're going to wait 6 months on the Rust rewrite", that would be reasonable. But instead it says something more like we think that Bun is vibe-coded, so we don't want to use it any more. That seems less reasonable.
It's not less reasonable. They don't have to promise giving Bun time in the future to evaluate. They might do it but they absolutely don't have to be responsible for doing it when the project made such dramatic shift.<p>They can do absolutely what they want with their project especially when its majority decision. There can't be no doubt about that.
Welp, I mean once the Rust rewrite is merged, isn't it vibecoded? Fair enough, it was vibecoded from a pretty detailed Zig specification :)
> A full rewrite of 1 million loc is essentially a new runtime<p>It's not a rewrite exactly. Nobody wrote anything. Not a single human has even seen, much less understood those 1m lines.
Even re-written by hand isn't the same because a hand re-write proceeds slower over a longer period of time with more smaller updates that get tested somewhat along the way.<p>Also I don't think it's wrong to use an action as an input to judging engineering character. That could be read as judging yt-dlp or judging bun but in this case I mean it's reasonable to judge bun's developers.<p>IDK if i'd personally judge this action quite so badly though. It depends how they went about it and what they proffessed to get out of it.<p>I am very much against letting llms think and decide for you, but I don't think it's so wrong for an actual coder to employ automation.<p>But if they are acting like it's magic and everything will be so much better after the magic llm uses the magic safe language... yeah that definitely gets the side eye. Or no eye. Just no longer interested in or concerned with their output.<p>Since this is being offered as the next release version while still being new and stuffed with unsafe, looks like it's the latter. So I'm with yt-dlp in this case.<p>It doesn't matter if the new code happens to be ok or not, it's still a problem that they got there by hoping a black box does the right thing. A black box that that no one wrote and no one understands, not just themselves.<p>gcc is a black box to me, but I know that <i>someone</i> wrote it and understands it (or some people collectively understand all it's parts), and I know that any time I want, I can choose to understand any part of it, and satisfy myself that it is doing something both sane and deterministic.<p>So a developer choosing to use gcc when it's a black box to them does not reflect badly on them to me.<p>But no one can say that about any llm or ai. So yeah, a developer choosing to use them, depending on exactly how, may reflect badly on them.<p>The same was true for cheap off-shore gig coding by humans too. I have tried to use them myself in the past, hire out for small generic programming jobs using those web sites where you put up some escrow money and post a job and people bid for it, you choose one, they do it and get paid from the escrow. I only tried about 3 times for the same small job and every time I git ridiculously shit (but technically functional) results.<p>These were humans 15-20 years ago, no possibility of hidden ai usage like today, and it's essentially the same dynamic of just hoping some magic will get you something good for cheap, and accepting any result that appears good as good.<p>If someone said that that's how they made their product, I would decide that product is probably pretty crap inside and no way should I buy it or invest in it as a dependency if I have any choice.<p>And that's humans not ai. The problem isn't really the ai, it's the judgement to use an ai that way.
If you wait for more segfaults, OOMs and other issues, than you have failed to avoid the problem. In my opinion this direction is correct and history will show who's right.
When expressed, sounds like a trivial principle. It's surprising how rare it is to see people actually do this.
Not only with tech stack: choosing cars, laptops, staying in a toxic relation, the list goes on
Notably, they aren't (yet) dropping support for older, pre-rewrite versions of Bun. They also could be leaving the door open to support Bun in the future, if the rewrite proves successful. I think waiting and seeing is the right, conservative move.
A key element of engineering is projecting a current trajectory. Given that, it absolutely makes sense to avoid tools that give you a bad feeling. The easiest time to move away from a tool that will become a train wreck is before you've integrated it.
Then Bun's rewrite is also political. They couldn't upstream their vibe coded "improvements" so in spite they decided to vibe a rewrite in Rust. The arguments for the rewrite were not backed by any data.
Every single macOS update the top comments are about giving it six months to stabilize, but when a program’s biggest ever rewrite involves a lot of AI, the top comment is calling you irrational if you don’t YOLO it, and probably a jerk, too.
YOLO? Bun has an extensive test suite and this implementation passed the test suite.<p>Can we at least try to be a bit more accurate and less hyperbolic?<p>I will continue to use Bun because the same people that made bun have made this decision. I trusted them one week ago. I have used bun for the past 2 years, and so have many others.<p>I'm not about to just assume they've become immature idiots yolo'ing stuff overnight. They're still the same people they were a week ago. Or two weeks ago.
>> same people that made bun have made this decision<p>Are they the same people though? Their interests, goals, environment, incentives, boss etc etc all changed after they got acquired by Anthropic. Its not uncommon for a big company to acquire a smaller one and completely destroy that product to serve the parent company's goal.
You can go read all the details on Jarred's X account - including the progress, how it was thought out, strategy, that they're aware that it looks like zig still, etc etc etc.<p>Speaking of environment though, everyone neglects to mention that the Bun core team now has access to Claude Mythos. You think they haven't already run Mythos against this? So they have private access to the best cybersecurity scanner known to man.<p>Suffice to say, I'm yet to see anything that really worries me in any major way with this.
I've read the details, strategy, extensive test suite etc. I'm sorry, I don't think "they have access to Claude Mythos" is the rationale to it unless you truly believe the marketing 100%.<p>I think we'll just see how it all turns out. Maybe check back in a year or two on hwo it all goes. Anyone who says they "know" or are "very sure" this is the right path or wrong path is plain stupid IMO. Having seen how things work in big companies with high market visibility, I believe there is non-trivial chance this driven mostly as marketting stunt (particularly in current climate) and decision isn't purely based on best interest of Bun's future and longevity.
Presumably MacOS has an extensive test suite that it is passing before each disastrous release. Tests matter, but they aren’t the entire story.
> this implementation passed the test suite<p>Didn't they also change the tests to make the re-write pass?
I don't think refactoring 1M lines of code into another language within 7 days and merging it to master is responsible. I won't make my code depend on it.
FYI in case you aren't aware, the rewrite was shipped, and then had to be reverted due to issues being discovered. That's "Jarred's high quality bar" you're so confident in.
The <i>whole point</i> of having canary builds is that they're unstable. That's why they're called canary. Rockets failing in test flights isn't a bad thing.
It absolutely is a bad thing. That's why so much effort goes into designing and manufacturing rockets correctly. So the tests go well and you can move onto actual launches. Using that as a metaphor for canary builds displays a lack of knowledge in just multiple areas lol.
> Rockets failing in test flights isn't a bad thing.<p>I hate to be pedantic but for a whole host of environmental reasons, they are suboptimal, and it still incinerates money to lose a rocket during a flight test.
Can you link me a source that says that the rewrite shipped to a point release (not canary)? I'm not seeing this.
News to me… share a link?
“... it seems unlikely he would ship this rewrite if it didn’t meet his quality bar” is every bit as vibes-based as the decision you are critiquing.
Jared has shipped a lot of things that have impressed me. His software is measurably faster than the alternatives, and I have measured it. It runs code that Node et al can't run, and I have tried. These are normal, everyday experiences with software - based in fact, not vibes. I'm not going to argue every decision he's ever made is amazing, but his decisions have historically tracked above average.
He plays around with a toy project in a separate branch, tells everybody to relax that's just an experiment that has no chance of being merged, then abruptly merges 1m lines of code not seen by a human, effectively zeroing out all the contributions ever made by anyone to bun, including contributions in progress.<p>At the same time, his arguments in favor of Rust are sound, there is no doubt about that.
> It runs code that Node et al can't run<p>What kind of code can't node run?
So, you're fanboying?<p>If we're gonna fight, lets go xbox vs playstation. Javscript runtimes are a snoozefest.
Not sure what seems "political" about this.<p>When deciding to support a given thing, you have to make a determination as to whether it's worth the effort or not.<p>You don't simply ignore unknowns. That effectively means assigning the unknowns zero cost, which is unlikely to turn out to be true. Generally, the more unknowns, the higher the risk, and the higher the risk, the higher the estimated cost.<p>There are a lot of unknowns about vibe bun right now.<p>One effective strategy for dealing with unknowns is to turn them into knowns if you can. Here, that probably means waiting to see how vibe bun turns out.<p>If it turns out to be stable and highly compatible, at some point in the future, they can always pick up support then.
Every decision is made with imperfect information about the tool, its future, and your current/future needs. This is a normal type of engineering decision.<p>Bun being replaced entirely with stochastically generated code is red flag (regardless of whether it was or not). But Bun was also acquired by a huge corporation, which has been classically a huge red flag. Both of these are plenty of reason for yt-dlp not to support Bun.<p>In either case, this seems like a niche use case. I've used yt-dlp for years and I've never used Bun with it. If Anthropic really wants their recent acquisition to be supported in yt-dlp, it can fork it and support it itself.
Why wait?<p>Seems reasonable to preemptively drop support and let someone else either suffer the fallout, or get proven wrong and just pick up support again. It's not for a lack of people motivated by IA. Unless the motivation is more "use <i>my</i> IA generated content" than "actually consume IA generated content", of course.
Everything is politics, sorry to say. Even software engineering try as we might.<p>> feeling like worse software<p>Politics ;)
> I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling - I select them because they do the thing I want them to<p>Among tools that meet a technical expectation—especially for (often) superfluous activities like downloading videos—I pick one that feels right and costs the right amount, and that's the one that wins. Free + works + usable is an unbeatable combination.<p>However, I'd argue their decision is related to a peer dependency than it is itself one about an engineering tool, which is an assessment of the risk surface and potential cost associated with doing so. I already wasn't using bun at all, but if they stopped supporting whichever runtime I do use, I can either adapt or stop using yt-dlp, which I won't because this isn't a technical thing worth wasting much time on. This mild, recent change to recently introduced peer dependency integration is largely inconsequential, and I support the call to not waste time providing extra support if it hypothetically became necessary.
I wouldn't call it politics. I've seen enough people aim a gun at their foot and pull the trigger. They'll never thank you for stopping them, they just want to be left alone while they do it.<p>So, great, if this dude wants to regress through the workforce to a level of engineering maturity I associate with a high school student, I don't wish to try to be the one to stop him. Doesn't mean I'm gonna follow him. It's possible to be smart enough to just not walk into the tarpit. He's going in, I'm not.
> I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling - I select them because they do the thing I want them to. If Bun starts having more bugs and feeling like worse software, I'll stop using it. But I will base that on data -- not a feeling I have.<p>being reactive is fine if you can tolerate issues. otherwise, you need to be proactive -- don't wait for the train to hit you before you move off the tracks
> I select them because they do the thing I want them to.<p>Regardless of the other aspects, this is a joke in any context I have been in since I started working in this field about 9 years ago.<p>Even as pure logic, you know they do what you want it to do only after you chose them. You can’t possibly be trying every option to the fullest capacity of your application.<p>You also converge on the “Jarred” aspect and the guy that made the decision in the title post has the opposite sentiment
Anyone who merges such a huge PR of ai generated code doesn’t deserve trust. This is a real black box now, even for the developer himself.
>I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling<p>But you do select your engineering tools on faith apparently.
a vibecoded rewrite right after being acquired is not political?
No one says that? Of course Bun rewrite is political. And if you deprecate Bun support due to they did something political, obviously this decision itself is political too.
Is it so unthinkable to people on "hacker" news that someone might want to try a cool experiment like rewriting an entire repo into Rust?
Most commenters here don't have an issue with Rust.<p>The 1M lines of code refactor by AI in a week or so then thrown into a production codebase... Yeah
Is it so unthinkable that people don’t want to participate in that cool experiment?
Cool experiment? true<p>Cool production? false
> This decision seems to based more in politics than engineering.<p>I'm glad some engineers realize that technology is inseparable from politics. It always has been. All evil came from engineers who beleived they were above politics. Selecting the tool which got the job done/made the number go up/paid a paycheck is how we got Facebook, Google, Palantir, crypto, AI, techno-fascism and neo-feudalism. None of it would've have happened without engineers blindly applying their knowledge to achieve "purely" technical results, while ignoring the social consequences. With the hindsight of the last 20 years, anyone who still advocates for an irresponsible adoption of technology should be considered automatically suspect
> I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling.<p>Those bad feelings are often your years of experience trying to tell you something.
> Have you observed Bun have more segfaults, OOMs, etc, since the Rust rewrite? Have you noticed more security vulnerabilities? Have you seen more bugs? (Of course you haven't, the rewrite hasn't even landed yet.)<p>Your argument could go other way too. Why haven't they landed if they're so confident with the change?
As far as I'm concerned Bun has been extremely irresponsible with this entire rewrite, and it calls into question their entire development philosophy. Any project that cares about stability and reliability should steer clear of Bun for a while.
You may not want to take part in politics, but politics wants to take a part in you.
I have no idea how that’s what you get from this. I don’t want my project using any tech that decides to take 6 days to rewrite the entire library with AI. That is at its core an engineering decision.<p>No healthy engineering team is going to do that. And I’d want to distance myself as far as I could from a project that behaves like that.
> I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling<p>I do, for example when I see constant behavior of lying, or negligence for security issues or not considering valid PRs and rewriting it to fit their paid plan and so on.<p>> I select them because they do the thing I want them to.<p>This is one of the dimensions when I pick the tools, I know Oracle produces nice products, but I don't want to get sued if I do something accidentally their lawyers dislike.
Isn't that what Bun/Anthropic did? A rewrite based on vibes?<p>Except "because we can" and the expectation that some kind of bug will be reduced and other metrics will not get worse<p>All Bun devs are happy to change programming language?<p>When their competition is already in rust and more mature<p>While using the LLM that is now paying their salaries. Kind of a conflict of interest<p>Even a major version upgrade is enough for me not to touch it for 6 months, let alone a full rewrite<p>Has Bun posted any analysis and shown the data?
The rust rewrite isn’t even out of canary IIUC.
> I will base that on data -- not a feeling I have.<p>and yet...<p>> If Bun starts having more bugs and feeling like worse software, I'll stop using it.<p>Is it not possible to judge that certain approach is more likely to bring unforseen controlable problems than another by analyzing how it works without assessing it's output? No "feeling" is needed
So, let's see here. Here we have a program, that is used to install scripts from source that has been targeted, and breached multiple times last few months, can run arbitrary code on millions or billions of user computer, servers. And, it was ported to another programming language, resulting in 1m LOC, in 7 days for publicity stunt of a LLM company<p>Even multiple people can not go through 1m lines of code for any kind of vulnerability in 7 days, let alone 'observe' more segfaults, OOMS, unsafe behavior, on who knows how many possible ways things can go wrong in this new condition.<p>Only guaranty is 99% tests passed, and the engineer who is paid by the same LLM company.<p>How in the world, any sane engineer would agree, this would be remotely a good idea to continue using this tool, for a chance that such a expensive change won't actually land in production?
I believe you contradicted your first point by following it with <i>"If Bun starts having more bugs and feeling like worse software"</i><p>...so you <i>do</i> use feelings in your calculation? To be clear, I have no problem with that and think there is some level of speculation you need to do when deciding what to rely on.<p>As a hypothetical, pretend that Bun added obfuscated binary blobs that get executed at build time. Well, your code still works and no effects show up at runtime. Are you going to keep using it or dump it based on the "feeling" that something isn't right?
absolutely, and `its development seems to have taken a turn towards being fully vibe-coded` ungrounded claim confirms the hysteria, I'm afraid
Yeah this is a cringe way to weigh in on something completely unrelated to your project. Who cares if some random package supports Bun? Compat was always on Bun, anyway.
> This decision seems to based more in politics than engineering.<p>You are 100% right. This is a decision made on VIBES and not evidence. The proof is here:<p>> Bun was recently rewritten in Rust using Claude, and its development seems to have taken a turn towards being fully vibe-coded. This is alarming and disappointing for a number of reasons, and frankly it seems like a future headache that we'd prefer to avoid.<p>They haven't tested it, they haven't found a single problem. They just don't like AI code and they're clearly saying "the fact that the project tested every line of code and it passes all tests doesn't matter to us. The fact that it's vide coded by people who literally make coding LLMs also doesn't matter."<p>Pure ego, no data.