> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.
I don't think "political" is necessarily a bad thing. Engaging in politics is how you shape the world. The mere act of writing and maintaining yt-dlp is quite political considering the context of IP law and enforcement that we live in.
It happens that in this case that I'd disagree with their politics if that's why they are dropping Bun support - I think there's a great deal of value in moving to memory safe languages, little harm in accepting anthropic compute and funding to do so, and that use LLMs themselves is roughly value neutral (though many uses are very much not value neutral). That said reasonable people definitely disagree with me.
That's not what I meant by political. I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".
EDIT:
Everyone is rightfully calling me out that this doesn't make a lot of sense. What I meant is that the move is driven by ideology. I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology, and an increasing amount of overlap between ideology and emotion. But it's fair enough to call me out here.
> I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".
I'm not familiar with this definition in any modern or archaic sense. Is there somewhere I can read about it? Just because a decision is not directly engineering related (which I'm not even convinced this is) doesn't mean that it's not thoughtful.
That's fair - I updated my comment a little. What I mean is that the decision was driven by an ideological basis, not an empirical one. Bun was written with AI, AI doesn't fit with my ideology, therefore I reject it. As opposed to Bun has these new problems X Y and Z, therefore I reject it.
The irony of this comment on an app that is:
- free and open source, which is an ideology, and that
- expands access to otherwise locked down media, which is again an ideological stance
"Political" here means "I don't like it"
I can't see how this counts as "political" or "ideological" by your definition unless you believe that emotion can't exist as part of any decision, in which case you should give up interacting with human beings entirely.
Regardless, the decision was 99% logical. In fact, even the emotional parts are laudable. For example, I love software. That's an emotion. If you disagree with that foundation, we will fundamentally never be able to converse with each other about what's best for software.
Wait, expecting all code to be verified and tested by a human is not engineering-driven but instead emotion-driven mindset???
What code is fully, or even primarily, tested by a human? Haven't you heard of automated testing suites, regression testing, conformance testing..?
Test code written by a human counts as "tested by a human". Also, most code is literally tested (manually) by humans in addition to automated tests. You are being pointlessly pedantic.
Bun has a test suite of tens of thousands of tests. For purely non-functional changes, like refactors or rewrites (e.g. a Rust rewrite) I rely primarily on test suites, not manual testing, in order to ensure that nothing regressed. I mean, sure, I am going to poke around, too, but the test suite is the encoding of thousands of obscure bugs and issues over years. There is no way my manual testing will be able to cover the same ground.
If I were to mirror your tone, I'd ask you if you've ever heard of the basic courtesy of running your code manually yourself before you waste anyone else's time with it... Or whether you've heard about QA, or about making demos for Product or for customers...
Neither of these can be replaced by an automated test suite of any kind, and all of these are examples of good engineering practices that guarantee software quality.
Additionally, even if you don't (need to) adhere to the best engineering practices and instead rely solely on an automated test suite, the tests in this suite must be validated - read and understood - by a human in order to guarantee that they nail down the correct requirements.
[flagged]
That has nothing to do with what "politics" means but it's exactly how people have started using "political" to mean "idea I don't agree with".
I think there is a lot of overlap between politics and ideology, and an increasing amount of overlap between ideology and emotion.
I think it's fair to call me out for skipping a step, but I wasn't using it to mean "idea I don't agree with".
>I wasn't using it to mean "idea I don't agree with".
I believe, maliciously or innocently, you were.
Humans have always appealed to emotion - as part of their logical process.
Fear (emotion) is used (advantageously) to force us to check that something isn't going to break us
In this instance fear is being used to ensure that yt-dlp is not exposed to (genuine) concerns about the quality of bun that is openly being built making use of tools we as a whole know is problematic.
I agree with you that the statements are a bit over the top (that's an emotional response to their statements btw) and that (eventually) you would /hope/ that bun gets to a point where it's got some genuine reliability from a users perspective.
Edit: I see your edit to explain that the issue is ideology - but unfortunately (perhaps) that's not an improved stance - ideology has to guide us when we just don't know - it's a heuristic.
That's a perfectly cromulent meaning of the word.