7 ms·

Measurably yes. They claim that 128 problems from the zig version was fixed, so I grepped for two known categories of UBs and unsoundness unique to unsafe Rust

Measurably yes. They claim that 128 problems from the zig version was fixed, so I grepped for two known categories of UBs and unsoundness unique to unsafe Rust and found 237.

insanitybit 2mo ago
So there were 128 known problems fixed and you've found 237 potential bugs that were greppable. And you think that's a regression?
- endospore 2mo ago
  Can't assume good faith in you at this point but I'll explain it. - They've written two articles, one by claude doing the migration another by the human behind it, neither acknowledge these problems. Nor does the incorrect SAFETY comments in code. - I only spent ten minutes and found two code patterns that are wrong with little exceptions. Also randomly checked a few samples and there was no exception. This basically means that failure patterns not explicitly picked and disallowed will repeat themselves over and over. Try imagine the more subtle ones hiding in this huge codebase. - Trivial to find != Trivial to fix. 107 of the problems (one of the categories) are borrow issue and requires large refactoring (rearrange and rethink whole modules of code) to be removed completely. So yes, huge regression by my standards. And I'm not questioning Rust the language. I'm questioning Claude, Jarred the person, their dev & marketing practice and the Bun project. Btw these categories are separate from the (still unfixed) category of problems I mentioned 54 days ago in the comments before.
  - insanitybit 2mo ago
    Our standards are different. I don't see any of that as a regression. You're pointing out potential problems that can be resolved, and specifically can be resolved because rust makes those problems grep'able. From my perspective. 1. 128 known bugs were fixed. 2. 237 potential bugs were made grep'able. That is a massive win to me.
    - endospore 2mo ago
      > made grep'able That's not the correct understanding. These are specifically the ones that were not bugs in Zig. They are forbidden in Rust because of reference invariants that don't even exist in Zig, so correct code are made incorrect during the port. That's what I meant by new problems were created and unique to unsafe Rust in my previous comments, if that wasn't clear enough. Again I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the context. Please clarify that.
      - insanitybit 2mo ago
        > They are forbidden in Rust because of reference invariants that don't even exist in Zig, so correct code are made incorrect during the port. I'm not sure that this is true - who says that the same invariants weren't broken on the Zig side? (Aliased pointers are UB either way, for example). Also, "unsafe invariant broken" does not strictly mean that there's a reachable bug. It should be cleaned up though, obviously. But in theory, callers may never actually trigger a bad invariant in an unsafe block. Regardless, even assuming that these are genuinely new bugs, it doesn't change my point. Going from ~X known bugs to ~2X potential, grep'able bugs, is a win to me. Sounds like it isn't to you. Great. > Again I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the context. Please clarify that. I'm obviously not intentionally ignoring anything, if you think I am then you can stop responding.
        endospore 2mo ago
        Yes you are. Either that or you are too distracted to read or you wouldn't be repeating > ~2X potential at this point. That's what I've found in 10 minutes. And they are actual bugs that I've take extra time to (statistically) verify. Please worship me as the new machine god if you think I've found all the bugs with a glance. And I'm not going to debunk each of your false claims, when you are doing that at the expense of appearing either dishonest or ignorant. I'm allergic to apologism. Additionally I'd admit that I've intentionally avoided talking about the specifics of these problems, giving links to each of them or something. That's for a concrete reason - I can't bear it if Bun gets (even in the slightest bit) better because of my contribution. It would be one of the worst things I can do, morally.

Measurably yes. They claim that 128 problems from the zig version was fixed, so I grepped for two known categories of UBs and unsoundness unique to unsafe Rust and found 237.

insanitybit 2mo ago

So there were 128 known problems fixed and you've found 237 potential bugs that were greppable. And you think that's a regression?

endospore 2mo ago
Can't assume good faith in you at this point but I'll explain it. - They've written two articles, one by claude doing the migration another by the human behind it, neither acknowledge these problems. Nor does the incorrect SAFETY comments in code. - I only spent ten minutes and found two code patterns that are wrong with little exceptions. Also randomly checked a few samples and there was no exception. This basically means that failure patterns not explicitly picked and disallowed will repeat themselves over and over. Try imagine the more subtle ones hiding in this huge codebase. - Trivial to find != Trivial to fix. 107 of the problems (one of the categories) are borrow issue and requires large refactoring (rearrange and rethink whole modules of code) to be removed completely. So yes, huge regression by my standards. And I'm not questioning Rust the language. I'm questioning Claude, Jarred the person, their dev & marketing practice and the Bun project. Btw these categories are separate from the (still unfixed) category of problems I mentioned 54 days ago in the comments before.
- insanitybit 2mo ago
  Our standards are different. I don't see any of that as a regression. You're pointing out potential problems that can be resolved, and specifically can be resolved because rust makes those problems grep'able. From my perspective. 1. 128 known bugs were fixed. 2. 237 potential bugs were made grep'able. That is a massive win to me.
  - endospore 2mo ago
    > made grep'able That's not the correct understanding. These are specifically the ones that were not bugs in Zig. They are forbidden in Rust because of reference invariants that don't even exist in Zig, so correct code are made incorrect during the port. That's what I meant by new problems were created and unique to unsafe Rust in my previous comments, if that wasn't clear enough. Again I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the context. Please clarify that.
    - insanitybit 2mo ago
      > They are forbidden in Rust because of reference invariants that don't even exist in Zig, so correct code are made incorrect during the port. I'm not sure that this is true - who says that the same invariants weren't broken on the Zig side? (Aliased pointers are UB either way, for example). Also, "unsafe invariant broken" does not strictly mean that there's a reachable bug. It should be cleaned up though, obviously. But in theory, callers may never actually trigger a bad invariant in an unsafe block. Regardless, even assuming that these are genuinely new bugs, it doesn't change my point. Going from ~X known bugs to ~2X potential, grep'able bugs, is a win to me. Sounds like it isn't to you. Great. > Again I'm not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the context. Please clarify that. I'm obviously not intentionally ignoring anything, if you think I am then you can stop responding.
      - endospore 2mo ago
        Yes you are. Either that or you are too distracted to read or you wouldn't be repeating > ~2X potential at this point. That's what I've found in 10 minutes. And they are actual bugs that I've take extra time to (statistically) verify. Please worship me as the new machine god if you think I've found all the bugs with a glance. And I'm not going to debunk each of your false claims, when you are doing that at the expense of appearing either dishonest or ignorant. I'm allergic to apologism. Additionally I'd admit that I've intentionally avoided talking about the specifics of these problems, giving links to each of them or something. That's for a concrete reason - I can't bear it if Bun gets (even in the slightest bit) better because of my contribution. It would be one of the worst things I can do, morally.