> experienced devs

No one on their team had Rust experience

> so from my perspective I don't see why we should be skeptical that frontier LLMs guided by experienced devs can translate whole libraries like that

There's a laundry list of reasons to be skeptical about LLM results in general. The biggest one is that LLMs are excellent at creating output that looks right but is nevertheless still wrong.

In this particular case, there's also a specific reason: This is obviously a marketing stunt regardless of whether the claimed results hold up. Anthropic has a long history of just lying and making shit up, so any results are subject to extra scrutiny.

You see this response because the port of Bun from Zig to Rust does not have anything to teach us about Zig, Rust or porting between languages with LLMs.

There are so many non-quantifiable properties to evaluate of the 'before' and 'after' codebases. Choices and preferences to be had about languages, language porting in general, and LLM coding.

After all that, pretend we could have a clear convincing distillation of the port and want to go apply the lessons learned. If someone doesn't get LLM porting results as good as Bun did, or it cost them substantially more in tokens, then they're "holding it wrong." If someone is underwhelmed by Bun's results, then it was just a proof of concept and the models have gotten so much better in the last 6 months anyway you can't compare.