← Back to context

Comment by tasuki

1 day ago

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.

    • See what coming?! I really don't understand what's going on here. Correctly predicted what, that Bun was being rewritten into Rust? I'm not sure anyone doubted that, all the work they did was public???

      What on earth is going on here?

      23 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"?

    • In what way? Foresight about what? It was an experiment before, regardless of people's reaction at the time doesn't make it less of an experiment back then. I feel like I'm misunderstanding this entire conversation right now.

      3 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.

  • 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.