Comment by somebehemoth
2 days ago
They did not write the rust code. AI wrote that code. Your response is side stepping the primary issue people have with the rewrite: no human has read and understood all the code AI wrote.
2 days ago
They did not write the rust code. AI wrote that code. Your response is side stepping the primary issue people have with the rewrite: no human has read and understood all the code AI wrote.
I agree but would propose the weaker argument: no set of human contributors have, put together, read and understood all the code. Even in artisanal-coded projects of sufficient size, it's rare that any one human has read and understood all of it.
The million or so lines of the original code has been "battle tested" for what it's worth.
This is a massive codebase created within a week or so ago, no one can say what it will do till it does.
"No human understands any of the code" is not the same as "no human understands the entirety of codebase fully". Very different situations.
I had an actual look at the code, and because it's a translation it's not just straight up de novo slop. The bits I saw were fairly straightforward 1:1 translations, so the Bun developers should still be familiar with the overall structure and logic.
I still think it's mad, but not quite as mad as you might first think from the headlines.
It's the little bits that aren't 1:1
Who wants to review a brand new codebase for free?
Why is it for free? Isn’t Anthropic paying their salaries?
2 replies →
That doesn't change anything. No one can say with confidence, backed by proof, that the 1M slop is semantically equivalent to the old code. The code is a black box without that guarantee.
Nobody can say that about Microsoft's rewrite of Typescript into Go (which was not done in a week with AI). That's an unrealistically high bar.
1 reply →