Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.
 help



> 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

[flagged]


Anyone who isn’t supporting using runtime rewritten by an LLM is obviously “doesn’t get it” and a luddite.

But in this case, the yt-dlp maintainers didn't actually evaluate the rewrite yet, they just declared they wouldn't support it, sight unseen.

Not really an argument on its merits.


OSS is not a testing ground for rewrites made by hyperscalers. Bun is free to fork yt-dlp and prove it is stable enough.

Why is it their job to evaluate a 1m+ line code rewrite?

That’s the fun part no one has evaluated the rewrite yet! Not even the bun team!

Claude says it’s all good though so what could go wrong


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.


It's a bit of a contradiction. We understand that AI can be used usefully, and to great effect. But if someone else uses it, it's a potential liability.

I think the issue is, we understand our own usage of it, and respect the boundaries of what's possible and what needs to be done to use these tools properly.

But we don't know how the other guy is using it.

We don't know if they're being responsible, and using it in a safe manner.

If they are: great. But if they aren't, we're opening ourselves up to all kinds of security shenanigans.

It's one of those things where we're only going to be okay with it, if we're the ones using it. But that also means other people will be suspect of our code.

It's really a no win scenario, except for inside each of own little bubbles.


AI or not, I trust a development team with a rigorous code review process, and I distrust a team that merges one-shot seven-figure PRs.

Bun has very loudly defected from the former category to the latter.


In this case though we do know how it was used? We’re talking about a specific case here.

It was used to write 1 million lines of code in a week.

Yes it was translating an existing codebase, but still there’s no way that is a safe transition.

Would you ship that at your job? I definitely would not


At my FAANG we do similar things all the time, but at a smaller scale.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: