To be honest, I share primeagen's view that LLMs handle translating code from one language to another quite well. As far as I know, they converted the languages file by file. This is what led to such a high volume of `unsafe` code. Although, in any case let's be honest, this is causing, and will continue to cause, various issues. I find it easier to live with this point of view.
He was a software engineer at Netflix before turning to content creation. It is also clear watching his videos that he knows his thing. As an experienced programmer myself, I find his commentary to be way too relatable to be just bluff.
He may not be Don Knuth, Linus Torvalds, John Carmack or Fabrice Bellard. But he is definitely a serious programmer. That he livestreams doesn't make him less of a programmer.
If it doesn't matter, why did the previous poster mention them?
It's pretty clearly a type of argument called an "appeal to authority", where an authority is cited to add credibility to a position. It's usually considered a pretty weak form of argument, but it can be effective. So the credibility of the cited authority is relevant.
Identifying where code is unsafe, is a qualitative improvement. Not guaranteed to be complete, but more complete than a language that does not focus on that concern. Moving forward, the benefits of Rust compound. The concern about AI is orthogonal to the concern about moving to Rust.
Now there are 2 versions[1] that can be instrumented, regardless of the misgivings about AI.
[1] Bun v1.3.14, released on May 13, 2026 (commit 0d9b296af) and current.
Presumably the RL for coding is better as that's literally what Composer is. I also assume Cursor subsidizes it to make people want to use it more, but I think the age of AI API wrappers is over as the AI companies themselves can just subsidize much more compute than what a wrapper could pay for, like Claude Code or Codex limits being way higher than their monthly price would imply.
Model open source leadership. Imagine the meltdown if Linus says Linux kernel is not going to be rewritten and then one day wakes up and merges full machine-assisted rewrite in Rust.
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.
I would say it is reasonably clear they had already committed to rewriting at that point.
The possibility that that particular code might be thrown out was potentially true, but also totally unrelated to the previous statement.
At the end of the day, whatever, but this feels a heck of a lot like “ah, we didn't mean for this to be public yet” rather than “this is just a random experiment”.
Ah, I thought you referring to a person. I'm sorry for misreading you.
It's still a bad HN comment, I'm afraid (denunciatory rather than curious, for one thing), but it wasn't a personal attack and not a post that would normally clear the bar for a mod reply.
I don't know if the intent was to deceive, but the comments certainly had the effect of deceiving me. I came away from that first thread thinking, "Ah, so the 'story' here is that someone on the project tried an experiment on a branch that they probably should have put in a branch on their personal fork." I was no longer thinking it was a serious possibility that an AI rewrite would get merged.
Those who earn their living from their labor, and those whose income is derived simply by owning things they (often) didn't create themselves and charge for access.
If any of these people don't work or don't work enough, they undeserving immoral moochers and should be miserable and in pain.
> and those whose income is derived simply by owning things they (often) didn't create themselves and charge for access.
It totally fine if these people never lift a finger in their lives. In fact, they deserve it. NEVER question that. N-E-V-E-R! It's great! Capitalism is great! Capitalism is fair!
reply