But what exactly are you projecting? Typically when people have said they have a bad feeling about something (imagine Next.js) it's because they are running into more bugs or they are seeing more production incidents. In this case there has been no chance to observe these things.
Bun in its current state absolutely has issues like segfaults. As nice as it is, I moved off of it back to node for production.
Folks generally tolerate issues if they believe they’ll get better with time. I know I did for a while. If that confidence collapses, that’s not politics.
But there's no evidence of that in the post. If they had said something like "Bun had bugs X, Y and Z - this Rust thing is the last straw, it's over" -- that would be a reasonable decision, and no one could really complain. But they didn't say that. They just said it "seems like a future headache".
- A single bug about EJS, which was fixed almost a year ago and has never regressed.
- Frustration that Bun was rewritten in Rust, which "seems like a future headache" - i.e. no evidence of current issues, just something which they suspect might have issues in the future.
If you see more evidence of more bugs that weren't fixed almost a year ago I'd be curious to see it.
Your HN account is too new for me to be sure whether you're being sarcastic or not. Perhaps you know, or perhaps you don't, that all code is machine-translated, even assembly language. None of it is perfect, but it's not garbage. Today's AI merely provides a new level. It's a weird, non-deterministic level, but hiring an employee to write code for you is similarly non-deterministic.
Seriously though, that's an overly-pedantic definition of a compiler. Broadly speaking, languages compile in a direction of decreasing abstraction. Crossing from one high-level abstraction to another is just asking for trouble, especially in this case where the target language makes very specific performance promises as long as certain abstractions are maintained.
