I don't think refactoring 1M lines of code into another language within 7 days and merging it to master is responsible. I won't make my code depend on it.

I think the correct term is *translopped*

Sometimes programs work because they rely on undefined behaviour. The users validate that. A famous quote: “we don’t break user space”

This quote comes from an old guy who can't seem to grasp the AI revolution and is manually programming some obscure shit in a language for old people.

You're literally able to write this because of all the obscure shit

What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid "we" tackle (agressively) the wrong problem, also making it's tough for the maintainers, who did nothing wrong (I have a lot of sympathy towards Bun's developers, they got a lot of ugly feedback within the last month). I don't think AI-written code is the problem at all. Human signs off the changeset the same way as it happened before. I don't care if Rust rewrite did happen using pipeline/harness and LLMs, if the maintainer takes responsibility, and in projects like Bun it happens "by default", I think.

I agree with you that AI-written code should not be a problem and tons of open-source projects have AI-written code right now. But do you really believe the way Bun rewrites and merges its code to master is the same as before? The change in rhetoric (from "don't overreact, it's just an experiment" to "merge it anyway"), the never-arrived blog post promised to explain the decision are concerning to me.

I really appreciate the maintainers' effort towards this awesome project. However, I think it is fair to be a little bit less confident with the current state of Bun.

A codebase that no human understands.

I am a Chinese, I agree with you. This book is consist of many wonderful "ideas" and bad-portray characters. In fact, IMHO, the characters in this book are only used to introduce those "ideas". But, those "ideas" are really amazing. This why some people love it, some think it is bad.