Comment by Barrin92
20 hours ago
if half of your files in a million line codebase are unsafe that doesn't tell you much any more. Presumably the point of a Rust rewrite is that you actually make use of Rust's safety features in a coherent way.
But given the whole "let AI rewrite this for me" stunt nature of this project that was not going to happen because that would require well, actual thinking and a re-design. So now you have Zig disguised as Rust and a line-by-line port because the semantics of idiomatic Rust don't map on the semantics of Zig.
>if half of your files in a million line codebase are unsafe that doesn't tell you much any more.
If half of your files in the first pass of a million line rewrite are unsafe then that's completely fine. Do you understand what the tag actually is? It doesn't even mean that the code is actually unsafe, just that the compiler can't guarantee its safety, which can happen for a number of reasons, some benign.
Who rewrites a 700K codebase trying to be idiomatic from the get go ? That's setting yourself up for failure, whether you're a human or a machine.
A 1:1 translation, warts and all, is the _only_ foolproof way to do a language to language rewrite. Anything else in a non-trivial codebase is almost guaranteed to introduce regressions.
And? This is absolutely the correct and standardized way to do mechanical rewrites: you do a rewrite that maps directly to the original source so you can rely on the original correctness guarantees and bug-for-bug compatibility and log issues, and then you go into the next phase where you begin to use idiomatic constructs.
This is the same in COBOL-to-Java ports that have been done in banking and insurance for the past 20 years.
If the rewrite was zig to C and half the code was in __asm blocks is that different or the same?
COBOL to Java is a completely different thing and pretty much unrelated.
Rust can easily call C libraries and vice versa and so can Zig. A more appropriate and designed rewrite would identify the core pieces of the Zig code that were the primary sources of all the big issues. Then, you rewrite that component in Rust and verify that you get the expected improvements. That keeps the codebase stable, it keeps you honest on actually reducing bugs and issues, and other benefits. Then you either just keep it that way or slowly rinse and repeat.
Without doing the analysis of what the core issues were in the first place, the author of Bun can make no claims towards the rewrite. He claims to have fixed flaky tests and improved memory safety. Where is the analysis that shows this? Where is the proof and data? Does he even know where the issues in the Zig codebase were at? I saw a commit where a test had a one second sleep put in place.
Compare this to say the Racket rewrite where a significant portion of the C core was replaced by Chez Scheme and Racket itself. There were several blog posts doing both pre- and post-analysis, and Racket has far less users than Bun.
This rewrite is totally unprofessional and has been poorly and even antagonistically communicated. The author was on this site just days ago telling everyone to relax and that he'd probably throw out this code, and that was even after it had been brought up that this wasn't pre-communicated to users. If I was a dependent in Bun, I would migrate off immediately.
So I push back in the idea that this is the way to do a rewrite like this.
>This is the same in COBOL-to-Java ports
it isn't, because those guys didn't think a naive 1-1 machine translation would give them the benefits of Java, which somehow the people involved in this rust rewriting seem to think they've already gained despite the virtually identical code.
If the whole point genuinely would have been to do a purely mechanical translation they could and should have written a transpiler, which would have had significantly higher correctness guarantees than this given that it'd be deterministic, but of course that would have defeated the PR purpose of this whole thing, which just looks like a marketing for Anthropic frankly
You gain some benefits. You could in theory gain benefits in compilation speed, portability or even memory use and execution speed, from an automatic language translation. But everyone, including the bun people, understand that you certainly don't get code clarity benefits, and safety benefits is extremely dubious.
> If the whole point genuinely would have been to do a purely mechanical translation they could and should have written a transpiler, which would have had significantly higher correctness guarantees than this given that it'd be deterministic, but of course that would have defeated the PR purpose of this whole thing, which just looks like a marketing for Anthropic frankly
If it were just a marketing stunt you wouldn't have a fraction of a percent of the test suite passing with the remaining bugs being realistically very fixable, and everything written in languages with type systems that give far more guarantees than what COBOL is possible.
You're being extremely negative about this whole endeavour without looking at the evidence that this effort is going far more smoothly than expected, and maps with many people's experience with using LLMs for tasks like these.
7 replies →