Comment by embedding-shape
1 day ago
You're not alone in voicing this, another (now dead) comment did it earlier too with a bit more of an emotional response (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48134229).
Still, do you folks never do something to see how you feel about something, then chose to go one way or another? I'm not sure why it's so hard to see that it was an overreaction at the time, because it was an experiment, then at one point it stopped being an experiment and now they've chosen to actually run with it?
Is this not a common occurrence for other people? Personally I change my mind all the time, especially based on new evidence, which usually experiments like this surface, I'm not sure I understand the whole "You said X some days ago" outrage that seems to cause people's reaction here.
Yes sure it's ok to change your mind. But don't you think the people Jarred accused of "overreacting" in retrospect didn't?
No, what we knew then is still what was known then. Today is different, and seemingly they've committed to the rewrite, so now it makes sense that people have strong feelings about it, as it's no longer just an experiment.
> so now it makes sense that people have strong feelings about it, as it's no longer just an experiment.
It also makes sense to have strong feelings when you're able to pattern match well enough to predict something will happen despite others trying to convince you that your predictions are incorrect.
It's not overreacting when correctly predicting the future, just because others couldn't. In the same vein, the idea that "everyone out to get you" is not called paranoia when there are people actually out to get you. That's better called being observant.
Some of those who predicted correctly might also have overreacted, but I believe that the majority understood that to be a blanket statement about prediction as a whole vs any specific individual reaction.
“Nobody could have seen this coming…”?
Well apparently a lot of people did. Maybe Jarred didn’t, maybe you didn’t, but most people correctly predicted what was coming.
24 replies →
Maybe the people who "were overreacting" just happened to have more foresight than you and me? Perhaps they saw where this was heading, and that led to their "overreaction"?
4 replies →
The top comment at that link points out how many of the sibling comments are delirious and emotional, kneejerk responding to the news rather than giving any sort of sober analysis.
That people were overreacting with emotional meltdowns (common in AI-related threads) is perfectly compatible with the branch making enough progress to get merged.
Anyone who disagrees with me is having an emotional meltdown and obviously they're delirious AI-haters.
1 reply →
This seems dishonest.
I'm reading through the top comments next to his and don't see that. You can always find delirious and emotional takes, but those didn't dominate the discussion
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48017505
> I wonder if a successful, albeit slower, approach would be to walk the git commit history in lockstep, applying the behavioral intent behind each commit. If they did this, I would be interested in knowing if they were able to skip certain bug fix commits because the Rust implementation sidestepped the problem.
Who cares? Go see a therapist
It's a high profile open source project. While Bun/Jarred don't owe anything to anyone, nobody should be surprised when decisions like these result in strong backlash.
Imagine if Guido or Linus said a couple of days ago that they're just experimenting and then submitted and merged complete machine-assisted rewrite of CPython or Linux in Rust.
This actually happened to me a couple months ago. Started a Rust rewrite of a project as an experiment, then a few weeks later it was presented to the team and promoted to mainline.
Although in that case the language change was almost incidental — the rewrite was very much not a straight 1:1 port, but more of a substantive architectural overhaul and longstanding tech debt cleanup; Rust was just one of many tools and design decisions that helped get the best possible end result. There were also various reasons it made sense to attempt a rewrite within that particular window of time.
The upshot is we've ended up with a substantially stronger QA posture, a much higher-quality and more maintainable codebase, and an extremely positive audit report by a group that was brought in to review the project. There were some early kinks to work out, but the longer we've lived in this version of code the more it's proven itself to be a stronger foundation than its predecessor.
Of course, Bun is its own thing and all circumstances are unique. I have no idea how that rewrite was approached, whether it was the right decision, or how it will ultimately prove itself. Just saying the shift from "experiment" to "official new direction" is normal and credible, and that I'd give it some time to see how it handles contact with reality before passing judgement. If it's truly a disaster, nothing's stopping them from reversing course and backporting any new changes to the old Zig codebase.