The binary release for Linux is a bit rough, there's an `install.sh` script in the repo which can install the tarball for you. For the next release there will be flatpaks, .deb and .rpm available.
Those images are generated from a training set, and it is already well known and reported that those training sets contain _real_ CSAM, real violence, real abuse. That "generated" face of a child is based on real images of real children.
> Bun, Zig, and uWebsockets are passion projects run by individuals with deep systems programming expertise. furthest thing from vibe coding imaginable.
Sure, I definitely will not throw projects like Zig into that bucket, and I don't actually think Bun is vibe-coded. At least that _used_ to be true, we'll see I guess...
> Prior to Bun, there was little focus on performance.
This is just completely insane. We went through more than a decade of performance competition in the JS VM space, and the _only_ justification that Google had for creating V8 was performance.
> The V8 engine was first introduced by Google in 2008, coinciding with the launch of the Google Chrome web browser. At the time, web applications were becoming increasingly complex, and there was a growing need for a faster, more efficient JavaScript engine. Google recognized this need and set out to create an engine that could significantly improve JavaScript performance.
I guess this is the time we live in. Vibe-coded projects get bought by vibe-coded companies and are congratulated in vibe-coded comments.
So far, someone from the bun team has left a bunch of comments like
> Poor quality code
...and all the tests still seem to be failing. I looked through the code that the bot had generated and to me (who to be fair is not familiar with the bun codebase) it looks like total dogshit.
But hey, maybe it'll get there eventually. I don't envy "taylordotfish" and the other bot-herders working at Oven though, and I hope they get a nice payout as part of this sale.
What in the world... jibal was the one who called _me_ a troll, I never called anyone a troll. Lord knows what is happening in this comment section at this point.
I can't reply to the reply to this one (guess the thread is getting too deep), but I just wanted to clarify that I'm not a rust critic, I use rust, I like rust, I have no problem with rust. OK great, moving on...
I used the word "childish" to describe posting comments about someones personality without any references or examples, and here you are doing the same but adding Gemini to the mix... and I'm the troll? :)
Is that really the whole reason for this grudge? He gave you a bunch of comments to work from! I was expecting a lot less from your description.
I don't find it too hard to figure out what he meant - he doesn't want to you change the case style of procedure calls, but he _does_ want you to remove redundant namespacing as in the CURL prefix.
Maybe you could have looked at some other vendored libraries to see how they handled things like constant naming and other formatting?
Dude, I find it utterly offensive that you and the other guy keep referring to all these interactions with Bill where he was a mean boy, and yet the closest to an actual quote or reference is some Gemini slop? If you're going to be that lazy, it would be easier to not post anything at all.
First, no it isn't. What baseless accusation did I make?
I haven't seen the conversations he is referring to, he didn't link to or quote anything. It's just some general complaint about Bill, which may be true but who cares?
I don't really get the distinction between adding the dynamic-literals feature flag and using unsafe in Rust? Like, if he had called it #+unsafe dynamic-literals, would that have been better?
Well, first of all, I guess I am wrong! Hey, I'm not Bill, just a user of the language.
A couple of clarifications, though: I did mean unsafe rust, not the safe subset. No need to get rude!
Second of all, I am of course not under the illusion that Odin prevents use-after-free (and thus, technically, it does allow UB I guess). I just don't think Bill is either. So clearly he doesn't mean UB by the same definition as you do.
_My_ use of UB has always been in the context of what a compiler will do during optimization, and the discussion I've seen in the context of C compilers is that they perform optimizations that remove code or change code in surprising ways because the way the code was written technically resulted in UB. But I'm neither a spec writer or a compiler author, so I don't really care that much about the actual definition of the term.
Anyway, best of luck in convincing Bill to use the term correctly as well! I won't mention UB when talking about the benefits of Odin in the future. :)