Comment by getcrunk
2 days ago
It’s not like they are discriminating on someone’s race or religion. If they don’t want a major vibe coded surface, do they even have to defend that? It’s part their “artistic” license as developers.
Or did we forget software inherently is opinionated
Given some posters on the GitHub issue, I get the sense some people feel their religion is being violated.
You don't even have to leave this site: when the original Bun rewrite posts were made, an incredible number of comments were focused, not on Bun, but on Jarred, who I'm assured is a complete rockstar and would never harm Bun.
Unfortunately, his followers don't realize that something like a batteries-included runtime is a huge commitment to build on top of, and governance you can trust matters as much, if not more, than the lines of code.
The way this has been handled is just baffling. A Rust rewrite is supposed to be a freebie for hype, and even an AI rewrite could have been interesting if approached more scientifically and transparently... but instead the opposite of that happened.
I don't think they have to defend it, but I don't think there's any issue questioning the validity of the approach.
If you don't like a decision don't harass, fork.
Based on the comments I think a lot of people assume the headline pertains to Bun itself.
exactly... and it's not like it's hard to fork and just raise the minimum version. It will probably be just one number somewhere (I haven't actually looked.)
if it works, it will keep working. they just don't want to support and maintain it and solve issues.
This stuff brings bad vibes.
Yes, it’s actually similar to discriminating based on race or religion, in the sense that it’s an arbitrary, meaningless criterion to discriminate on. If the Rust Bun port is better in every measurable way — passes all tests, has the same performance or better, and fixes existing bugs — then who cares what language it’s written in or how it was implemented? The point is that it’s higher quality. If you don’t trust the Bun team when they release a Rust version and give it their stamp of approval, why did you trust them when they released the Zig version two weeks ago? It makes no logical sense, and it makes the yt-dlp devs look foolish.
> If you don’t trust the Bun team when they release a Rust version and give it their stamp of approval, why did you trust them when they released the Zig version two weeks ago?
I think you cannot make this comparison because Rust version wasn’t in fact written by the Bun team. It wasn’t even read by them.
“All runtimes matter”
Yt-dlp devs made a good call. If Claude is good enough to rewrite millions of lines of Bun, it is good enough to maintain Bun fork of yt-dlp. And since Bun is part of Anthropic, they can afford it too.
people don’t care if it’s good. they only care it’s made with AI so they can signal their moral superiority. hence the derogatory term slop that is paraded around like it’s the way to win an argument
It's just more reactionary "AI bad." The tech world is rapidly splitting into people that "get" AI and people that bizarrely still resist it because they are stuck with a 2024 understanding of what AI can do (and never bothered to update their priors in earnest.)
Anyone who isn’t supporting using runtime rewritten by an LLM is obviously “doesn’t get it” and a luddite.
5 replies →
What about people who view AI as a useful tool, and use it daily while still recognizing it’s limitations?
I’m no AI hater, but there’s a limit to how much trust I give it and the Bun rewrite is well beyond that limit.
4 replies →