5 ms·

Why not rewrite claude-code in Rust? So, Anthropic acquires Bun team because claude-code uses Bun. They port Bun from Zig to Rust presumably because Rust "is b

Why not rewrite claude-code in Rust? So, Anthropic acquires Bun team because claude-code uses Bun. They port Bun from Zig to Rust presumably because Rust "is better" (imagine big air quotes here). Again presumably, they want to make claude-code "better". Why make it so complicated? With all the power of LLMs they have, surely they can make claude-code the best possible by writting it in Rust directly.

lionkor 5mo ago
Presumably they aren't falling for their (extremely obvious) "grassroots" marketing, and know, like any good engineer, that LLMs are not the right tool for this. It's easy to just see Bun as a marketing stunt, as well.
- raincole 5mo ago
  > that LLMs are not the right tool for this. Claude Code itself is already heavily written by LLMs[0], so I'm not sure what's "this" here. You mean LLMs are okay for writing code but not porting? [0]: No, it's not just marketing. The codebase was leaked and anyone who glanced at it would realize the claim is likely true.
  - CharlieDigital 5mo ago
    You missed the point of the question: why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust ostensibly for even better perf.
    - raincole 5mo ago
      Are you replying to the wrong comment? I clearly quoted which part I were replying to. I didn't attempt to answer the question "why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust." What I said is that "they know that LLMs are not the right tool for this" is not the answer, as CC is already vibecoded so it'd be very weird to believe you can't vibecode a port of CC. The actual answer is, of course, the whole discussion is just making a hill out of a mole. Bun is not committed to a Rust rewriting, vibed or not.
mirekrusin 5mo ago
"You are absolutely right! Would you like me to delete Bun and rewrite Claude Code in Rust instead?"
Perz1val 5mo ago
Because afaik claude code is react rendered as TUI. They must really want react. I guess that happens to ones brain on too much ai
- bloppe 4mo ago
  It mangles the render so often. Now I know why.

lionkor 5mo ago

Presumably they aren't falling for their (extremely obvious) "grassroots" marketing, and know, like any good engineer, that LLMs are not the right tool for this. It's easy to just see Bun as a marketing stunt, as well.

raincole 5mo ago
> that LLMs are not the right tool for this. Claude Code itself is already heavily written by LLMs[0], so I'm not sure what's "this" here. You mean LLMs are okay for writing code but not porting? [0]: No, it's not just marketing. The codebase was leaked and anyone who glanced at it would realize the claim is likely true.
- CharlieDigital 5mo ago
  You missed the point of the question: why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust ostensibly for even better perf.
  - raincole 5mo ago
    Are you replying to the wrong comment? I clearly quoted which part I were replying to. I didn't attempt to answer the question "why write Bun in Rust when CC itself can be written in Rust." What I said is that "they know that LLMs are not the right tool for this" is not the answer, as CC is already vibecoded so it'd be very weird to believe you can't vibecode a port of CC. The actual answer is, of course, the whole discussion is just making a hill out of a mole. Bun is not committed to a Rust rewriting, vibed or not.

mirekrusin 5mo ago

"You are absolutely right! Would you like me to delete Bun and rewrite Claude Code in Rust instead?"

Perz1val 5mo ago

Because afaik claude code is react rendered as TUI. They must really want react. I guess that happens to ones brain on too much ai

bloppe 4mo ago
It mangles the render so often. Now I know why.