Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently. I'm afraid one reason could be that zig doesn't want to accept code from the bun fork in the first place (because of LLM usage, deviation and other reasons)
So it is not, by your own admission, "exactly, literally the same".
If there's a black box which I can send C code into one side of and get faithful machine code out the other, I'd call that box a "compiler". I wouldn't rename it if I later find out that there are little elves inside doing the translation.
High-level languages can certainly yield inefficient code when compiled, or maybe different code among different compilers, but they're always meant to allow their users to know exactly what to expect from what they put together in their programs. I've always considered this a hard fact, I simply cannot wrap my head around working in a way that forces me to abandon this basic assumption.
- the scale of how much and how fast you can generate code with AI vs how fast can you write code for compiler
- the mental model of what is being generated and how much the contributor understands and owns the generated code
Vide-coders often don't read, let alone understand, the code they send for PRs.
That is if you use something like C, C+=, Java, .NET, Go. With Javascript and Python I don't think knowing assembly would make any difference because it's hard to optimize the code in these languages for how the CPU and memory works.
The same applies to vibe coding: the best "vibe coder" will paradoxically be the person with enough knowledge and curiosity to understand programming, how computer works and the subject at hand; one that could write the whole thing from scratch so they have enough judgement to review generated code.
Of course the vast majority will be mediocre vibe coders, and even worse programmers; at least that's the direction we're going.
It's possible to know in general terms, how computers work, and what assembly is without "knowing assembly" in the sense of being familiar with using/debugging it as a programming language.
Then it's sufficient to know assembly, but not necessary.
This is compatible with "[developers] that still understand assembly to this day tend to be better developers", but not with "[on developers who] don’t know assembly, which speaks to [their] quality".
Sucks for people who were invested in contributing to Bun and don't like working with AI tools to be sure, but I think the writing was on the wall for them pretty much immediately post-acquisition. You must admit, it's hard to predict that 100% of source lines will be written by AI if you're not walking the walk!
(Though I don't know if this particular patch series would get accepted on its own merits.)
split into a bunch of much smaller changes?
There's no reason to assume my generic statement was talking about the ugly version rather than the nicely organized version.
LLMs promote a decoupling of mental models and the actual codebase.
As much as some may want to believe, just reviewing what the LLM outputs is not equivalent to thinking about implementation details, motivations, exactly how and why things are, and how and why they work the way they do, and then writing it yourself. The process itself is what instills that knowledge in you.
Zig, as programming language, has a multiplier codebase. A bug may affect a significant larger portion of users than most libraries or binaries will, as it's a fundamental building block of everything that uses Zig. Just that could be worth the extra scrutiny on every individual commit.
There's also the usual arguments: copyright ethics, environmental ethics and maintainer burden.
Couldn't you say exactly the same about bun?
I guess there are 2 philosophies in software development: move fast and break things and move at a pace that guarantees everything is rock solid.
Most commercial software, Anthropic included is taking the former path, while most infrastructure teams are taking the later.
I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet.
Both appear to be[1][2]. FreeBSD doesn't have a formal policy yet, but they appear to be leaning towards admitting some degree of LLM contribution.
[1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html
[2]: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-a...
Zig is famous for taking the former path! Anyone using Zig for a few years knows every release breaks things, and they are still making huge changes which I would classify as “moving fast”, like the recent IO changes!
PostgreSQL, a famously slow and rock solid project, accepts LLM-based contributions. But they are held to the same high standard, if you cannot explain the patch you submitted it likely get rejected.
You can be against a particular technology without being "anti-technology".
See DRM/surveillance/bad self driving implementations.
Just because a thing exists doesn’t mean you have to use it for everything. You don’t use asbestos blanket? Why are you so against asbestos?