Presumably they aren't falling for their (extremely obvious) "grassroots" marketing, and know, like any good engineer, that LLMs are not the right tool for this.
replyIt's easy to just see Bun as a marketing stunt, as well.
> that LLMs are not the right tool for this.
replyClaude Code itself is already heavily written by LLMs[0], so I'm not sure what's "this" here. You mean LLMs are okay for writing code but not porting?
[0]: No, it's not just marketing. The codebase was leaked and anyone who glanced at it would realize the claim is likely true.
You missed the point of the question: why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust ostensibly for even better perf.
replyAre you replying to the wrong comment? I clearly quoted which part I were replying to. I didn't attempt to answer the question "why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust."
replyWhat I said is that "they know that LLMs are not the right tool for this" is not the answer, as CC is already vibecoded so it'd be very weird to believe you can't vibecode a port of CC.
The actual answer is, of course, the whole discussion is just making a hill out of a mole. Bun is not committed to a Rust rewriting, vibed or not.
"You are absolutely right! Would you like me to delete Bun and rewrite Claude Code in Rust instead?"
reply