People _really_ don't want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks successfully exploring the space.
I do have to agree with the author about Jarred's false claims about release dates though. Really not sure why he keeps doing that.
The most obvious benefit Rust can give them is being safe from memory leaks. This is hardly controversial: it has been a Zig design choice that memory leaks are the developer/user's responsibility. They have already demonstrated to have fixed several of those [0].
Marketing-wise, it has been an obvious success. Dunno if that matters.
That’s not like … a design flaw or something, just a common class of error Rust can’t save you from.
What's interesting tho it's that it can go from apparent marketing success to a big failure as the release keeps getting postponed.
Seems pretty simple to me: if the software works, the port has been successful.
If this is unsatisfactory, another way to think about the question is to ask "what would make you conclude it has failed?" That requires a sharp choice.
People _really_ want there to be success stories for llms and they will go through all lengths to discredit and disparage folks questioning the space.
But, for people who don't like AI, they also refuse to believe that AI could be good at any particular workflow. Which is just obviously not true, there are workflows that AI is really good at. Language re-writes are one of them. They're almost mechanical in nature and trivial to check via tests. So, the perfect use-case for an LLM.
I'm not saying the Bun re-write is any good, but the underlying concept is sound. If ever there was a tool to do a language re-write, it would be a high quality LLM.
And yes, I think he was not genuine there and that they had indeed fully committed to the rewrite prior to that point and comment.
If you're not aware of any of this, how are you arguing it was communicated clearly?