Deno was already implemented in Rust, and not done by vibe-coding.
Would you trust a fully vibe-coded runtime? Not some features, not some fixes, but a full translation from one language to another.
Would you trust a fully vibe-coded runtime? Not some features, not some fixes, but a full translation from one language to another.
Do people trust random NPMs developed by random people on the internet? Apparently we do given all the recent issues with supply chain attacks.
I have a problem with people using vibe coding to refer to any contribution for which AI is used. I think it is inaccurate. People providing very low quality contributions to projects is a problem. But the real problem is people accepting such contributions.
It depends.
We called it Adatran.
That code was weird and very hard to maintain. That goodness it was just small functions.
IMO, the main problem with vibe coding is that it empowers reckless behavior at companies like Microsoft, and that people with no serious investment in outcomes are empowered to make things. Does that apply to Anthropic? The Bun team? It's not 100% clear yet.
Sure, but that wasn't really the question, the question was why it's obvious no-one or no-thing have closely reviewed the code? Given they use LLMs to produce the code, wouldn't surprise me if they used LLMs to review it too, and I don't see it as unfeasible to be able to review a lot of code on a lot shorter timeframe.
It's not like they're doing something unique or novel, they even had an implementation in another language they knew did the right thing, so all the review would have to do, would be to make sure it's the same in the new language.
Don't get me wrong, again, probably there is plenty of mistakes in there, and might catch on fire when run in the wrong way, but I still don't think it's obvious how they've done things, unless you have insights into their process which seems clear to me now that you don't.
> They obviously haven't closely reviewed the code. That's the point
You asked why.
If Bun’s maintainers truly reviewed it, they would've had to read at least 6k lines per hour for a full week without a break. No one can claim in good faith that could possibly have happened.
Bun is now a black box consisting of million lines of largely unread code. No amount of "you don't know the whole story" lawyering or endless demands for "proof" of the obvious will change that.
The scope of the issue goes far deeper than "there might be some mistakes." Because what happened with the rewrite isn't engineering. Engineering applies the scientific method and rigorous verification to real world problems. It surely isn't about trusting a digital genie's "guarantees" that "all is fine." All aspects of LLM output is undefined behavior, and Bun blindly accepted million lines of code generated from it.
Before anyone brings it up again, tests aren't a sufficient defense. They only catch a tiny subset of the infinite possible failures. Modern software development still depends on developers understanding the code they produce.
Human architects and engineers make TONS of mistakes in these designs all the time. Then builders and contractors fix them, or in many cases "fix" them, as I'm sure most people here have experienced.
Also if vibecoding houses can lead to a large increase in housing supply, as it should: Hurray!
I love how well this captures the credibility of zealots and how some won't hesitate to exploit human suffering to push an agenda. The housing crisis is driven by regulation that lowers supply, shaped by greed and cruelty. Turning house designs into slop won't solve anything.
You want to see how AI actually contributes to the housing crisis? Then here's an actual example:
"Rent Going Up? One Company’s Algorithm Could Be Why." https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
If y'all ever wondered how your dads got sucked into alt right talkshows and radio, just read ops comment in Tucker Carlson's voice.
And you bringing the fringe entertainers of the illiterate Americans is totally unnecessary.
Are you an engineer? Make clear claims, and then back then up crisp and concrete arguments. Support your arguments with data. That's engineering.
What you're doing is wallowing in the outrage machine. Please start with your indepth understanding of the bun runtime that qualifies you to comment on the overall quality claims that you have not yet made but have insinuated.
Please clearly cite your concerns. Please present a cogent and articulate analysis of the overall shortcomings, gaps and potential threats of the bun rewrite.
Let's have an engineering discussion.
And while you're at it, make your own argument. That's a skill required of any engineer.
The maintainers have merged an enormous pull request in a week. They haven’t shown signs of understanding Rust. They are doing an experiment that can affect (via runtime bugs) to all bun users.