upvote

points

by Eufrat1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby nine_k21 hours ago|
next
[-]
They are looking for a different human buy-in.

"Yes, the AI rewrote the code. No, we do not pretend that we've scrutinized the code, or that we understand it. It works, tests pass, so we don't care, and so shouldn't you."

The "recklessness" is offered as the new normal. Because it kinda, well, works for them.

reply
upvoteby notpushkin17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The recklessness kinda works for everybody until some point. Go fast and break things... then cash out before investors realize, unless you manage to capture the market so you can keep breaking things because people will swallow.
reply
upvoteby gwerbin18 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What's working for them is having a huge amount of resources and very good people to design a cutting edge agent harness, RLHF the hell out of their models, and build out a tremendous amount of inference capacity. I'm sure their process for making code changes in any of their client apps is very fast, but a TUI built around a chatbot is also not a particularly complicated application. So yes it's working for them, but the vibecoding that they are selling is clearly not what they are doing in practice.
reply
upvoteby notpushkin17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They’re not talking about the chatbot TUI. The chatbot TUI was and is in JavaScript. They’ve ported the JavaScript runtime.
reply
upvoteby yard201015 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not GP but the js runtime has a long tail of case edges you simply can't emulate with a single app.
reply
upvoteby notpushkin15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It surely does. I’m also extremely worried about the way they’ve decided to go with the port.
reply
upvoteby johncolanduoni1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What does Bun’s governance look like? Now that Anthropic bought the company are there significant external contributors that would expected to have input on a decision like this?
reply
upvoteby peteyycz23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And why buy it when they could have just called it Run and do the Rust conversion anyways? The license prohibits it, they don’t need the team’s expertise anymore, since they’re running full AI vibecode mode. Makes no sense to me
reply
upvoteby gpm23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Seems pretty clear that they do need the team, to direct the LLM effectively.

Also they're probably interested in the team just as an acqui-hire of good developers, and they're probably interested in the marketing value of converting the actual bun to rust via LLMs. But mostly I'd assume it was about needing the team to effectively direct the LLMs.

reply
upvoteby sharts23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
IMO it’s reckless to not pin down ones dependencies. No need to pull the latest experimental hotness
reply
upvoteby Eufrat22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I get that and I can see an argument that they didn’t really put it as stable, but I suspect the reason it is not the stable version right now is from the massive pushback as other projects and companies started pulling support for Bun because of the loss of confidence rather than any other reason.
reply
upvoteby burnte22 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
How about testing the output? Seems like the ultimate test. If the output's still good, I guess the rewrite didn't hurt.
reply
upvoteby rgoulter18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Kindof.

The problem is: quickly fixing problems (or preventing problems) benefits from having a good understanding of what the code is doing.

If you do have a suite of automated checks that's comprehensive enough that if it passes, no one will have any problems with the result, I think I'd agree. -- I don't think we're quite there at the point where "programming" is coming up with that suite of automated checks and then just not regarding the source code of the program itself.

reply
upvoteby layer814 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Testing can expose errors, but it can’t prove correctness.
reply