> I started looking at the commits, and it's basically solving the ,,tests not pass'' problem by changing the tests themselves. The real work of making it working on programs that are already deployed will be just starting now.
Wow, This is definitely quite something for sure.
Can jarred comment about if he has read the commits or not too or respond to your comment, this has basically made me lose the small faith I had in what bun is doing if it turns out to be correct.
It's OK, we'll see how it goes. He and Antropic are giving it us for free, and nowdays just forking the old version is easy if a project needs that. Even maintenance is much easier using LLMs.
I'm happy it's not a project I'm depending on, but a large enough project had to try this at some point so that we all can learn from how it goes.
I think this is why Antropic bought bun, so that they can sell big code translation as a feature for all the banks with COBOL code that they want to get rid of for a long time.
Still, those banks / enterprises won't appreciate the number of unit test changes.
And I agree with another comment that Codex xhigh is much better for these kinds of tasks, but still hard on this kind of scale.
Jared has commented on this elsewhere in the thread, basically claiming the parent you replied to is outright lying: it has removed no tests and has not meaningfully changed annotations to reduce coverage of effectiveness. It added additional tests and made a few changes to hard coded values due to differences in, as an example, how LLVM and Zig handle stack frames.
The MR is right there, linked at the top of this page. You can check who is telling the truth.
That said, I don't know how anyone is actually claiming to have done that. All day, the size of the MR makes the diff take too long to load and GitHub dies. I'll have to pull it later to check myself.