That you're only just "learning" that these things are true is a damning admission. And to fix your bad analogy, it's more like "hey maybe we shouldn't be allowing f1 street races through school zones".
That you're only just "learning" that these things are true is a damning admission. And to fix your bad analogy, it's more like "hey maybe we shouldn't be allowing f1 street races through school zones".
That analogy might work if this situation is 'reckless behaviour risking children's safety' but in this case it's much closer to 'We made an large, potentially risky change that you can choose to avoid until it's more mature'
The analogy is just bad to begin with.
It's more like "we've switched ingredients while actively denying that they'll be switched".
They never denied they'd switch, just that they'd need solid improvements confirmed before they switched. Clearly internally they've decided they've seen the gains necessary to carry on with the switch
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019226
> 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 know words are hard, but if you find it hard to believe any humans here, then feed it into your favorite LLM.
This is silly IMHO. They haven’t released a new official Bun version with this code yet. It is a canary release. Give them a chance to figure it out and try it out and see how the limited number of production users of bun as a runtime experience the move. If it succeeds, this will massively accelerate development and they will have much to teach us all about how to safely code 1M lines with AI and merge it in days. If it fails, we will know that AI isn’t ready for that yet