I find comments like this fascinating, because you're implicitly evaluating a counterfactual where Bun was built with Rust (or some other "interesting" language). Maybe Bun would be better if it were built in Rust. But maybe it would have been slower (either at runtime or development speed) and not gotten far enough along to be acquired by one of the hottest companies in the world. There's no way to know. Why did Anthropic choose Bun instead of Deno, if Deno is written in a better language?
We can think of they making bun an internal tool, push roadmap items that fit their internal products, whatever, which doesn't answer the getting back money of the acquisition.
Profit in those products has to justify having now their own compiler team for a JavaScript runtime.
Don't engage with this guy, he shows up in every one of these threads to pattern match back to his heyday without considering any of the nuance of what is actually different this time.
There's nothing inherently Zig about this - it's some random person who is not affiliated with the project in any way. They could have done the exact same BS copyright-infringing AI slop project in any language.
You could just read their whitepapers and accept them at face value. What other major SaaS providers are publishing about their technical countermeasures against insider risk?
If a company publishes loads of articles about how they have technical controls for privacy and security, through encryption and compartmentalization and code review and build provenance and so forth, and all the people who work/worked at said company are always whining about how onerous those processes are, then what gives you reason to doubt it?
I wish I had an answer for you. I spend at least half of the past year trying to make that decision. The internal LLM that can read all the docs and code, you'd think, could get the context to know what the optimal state is, but it easily gets confused by out of date documentation and recommends paths that are going to be marked as "why didn't you use the new thing?" at review time, OR it builds out a solution using "oh, this isn't ready for use yet" parts.
Hindsight is 20/20 but that article definitely makes me question the technical leadership of the project. They chose to write a source transformer (which introduced its own set of issues) rather than update string literals to use b'' syntax because they didn't want contributors to have to learn how to use python 3? And because they didn't want lines to be too long? And because it would break change attribution for the lines in question? None of those reasons sound compelling to me at all, but the author presents them as the correct decision.
He does have a LinkedIn, and his GH user has a real looking GitHub pages site associated with it.
Please don't violate US Treasury dep sanctions just to be a founder for a business with 0 customer validation, you might as well be helping a Nigerian prince.
Seek counsel with a lawyer versed on this first, rather than the HN comments section or your own exuberance.
reply