Comment by lifthrasiir

3 hours ago

The article explicitly mentions the maintainability as a foremost concern.

People say a lot of things, especially when they have a vested interest in a positive outcome. Bun has been fully vibe coded into another language. There’s no way in hell it’s maintainable. Go read any analysis of the Claude Code leak for proof.

  • Claude Code is entirely vibe-coded for a long time. Bun isn't. You go read and compare the actual Bun code; it reads reasonably well [1].

    [1] For example, as a random sample, https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/blob/bun-v1.3.14/src/css/medi... -> https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/blob/4924862cffbf671792d47c92...

    • Sure, reasonably well at first glance, but to quote the article:

      > I rewrote Bun in Rust using about 50 dynamic workflows in Claude Code run continuously over the course of 11 days.

      > Excluding comments, Bun is 535,496 lines of Zig.

      > How do you review a PR with +1 million lines added? How do you start to build the confidence needed to responsibly merge large quantities of LLM-authored code? A language-independent test suite with a million assertions, adversarial code review and when something does go wrong, fixing the process that generates the code instead of hand-fixing the code.

      That’s vibe coding. This blog post is an ad for Claude, nothing more.

      4 replies →

  • > There’s no way in hell it’s maintainable.

    They rewrote the entire thing with extensive LLM use.

    It is abundantly clear that their idea of maintainable and yours probably don't match up.

    It's apparently out there, shipped in the real world, with people saying it's good. I think it's a pretty clear win for them.

  • > There’s no way in hell it’s maintainable

    This is not an assertion you are qualified to make

    > Go read any analysis of the Claude Code leak for proof

    You seem to be implying that Claude code is unmaintainable. Yet they appear to be maintaining it just fine. Did I misunderstand your implication?