Why would it matter to you as a user, which language it was used before it was compiled to the machine code you run?
With a codebase this size theres a real chance of having miscompilations in there.
What's the points of running a safe language on broken infrastructure, it's garbage in garbage out.
And with Zigs recent plans to replace llvm with their own backend I'm not even sure if they won't continue scope creeping into vapourware.
You burn those CPUs in. You run them a bunch. Measure them. Measure their efficiency gains. If the gains are real, make a plan for scaling them up. Have fallback plans. The usual stuff. If a company has someone that does this as their job, they're on it.
If Bun affected your source code or development process, I would understand this perspective. Maybe don't use Bun-specific APIs yet, and just stick with the Node compatibility.
Decoupling is of course possible, but the difference here is that the lang powering the runtime is not guaranteed to remain the same language it currently is, since it's in active initial development. That introduces a unique axis of risk to runtime stability, it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
- Zig v0.11 doesn't have async/await, which I needed, because they haven't implemented it yet on the self-hosted compiler;
- I couldn't use v0.10 due to some bugs with comptime in the old compiler, which are solved in v0.11.
Still, while bold, I don't think it's totally unwarranted to tag Bun 1.0. They may have to put some extra effort here and there to work around the language's instability.
This is not a critique of the Zig team, they make it very clear that the language is not ready for production use yet.
the internals of bun may need to change when a new version of zig requires it, and the bun developers decide to use that version of zig, but existing versions of zig will continue to exist in the future.
future versions of bun can use existing turing complete versions of Zig if they ever decide to remove turing completeness from the language in the future.
lol