Unless specific issues have been identified that were introduced by it being "vibe coded", isn't a reaction to reject it outright without actually checking the ground truth just exhibiting the behavior you are criticizing?
It's just a trust issue. Have you seen the absolute state of the Claude Code CLI development? I don't want that to suddenly happen to Bun after I've already used it for production stuff.
I don't see any hypocrisy in the comment you are criticizing. The behavior they are criticizing appears to be vibe coding. How is rejecting something for being vibe coding "exhibiting the behavior" of vibe coding?
“Don’t like it – don’t use it, nobody owes you anything”, then the next thread “noooo, why have you stopped using it, you must support my slop”. Absolute cinema.
Any software engineer that still rejects the concept of agentic coding is frankly NGMI. If you still see AI this way, you simply never bothered to update your priors, which is just not survivable in this career. I do hope you're already independently wealthy.
The ground truth is that the new maintainers can’t possibly have a good understanding of the many millions of lines of vibe-translated code. Even assuming that the code happens to work okay in its current state, the lack of understanding means a high risk that its continuing maintenance won’t result in a satisfactory level of reliability.
They reviewed it in the sense of integrating something that worked, this is something maybe not completely different but different enough to give pause.
I'm not sure what "exhibiting the behavior you are criticizing" would even mean here.
BUT.
"Ignore anything but actual problems" is a terrible stance to take generally for software and dependency selection. Incidents are fairly sparse, process is much easier to observe. So if you can find connections between process and incident possibility, that's a very reasonable heuristic. And it's easy to find examples of overaggressive LLM usage introducing problems into software.
You are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about such a stance.
The vast majority of new software is written using AI. The problem is not that it is written by AI, but rather than some people treat it like a black box. It is entirely possible to use AI to write code and verify that it is correct. Even Linus Torvalds is allowing AI generated code into the Linux kernel as long as it's managed properly.
You are referring to black-box coding, not vibe-coding. There is no strong formal definition of that word. Is there evidence that they just fired off the LLMs and didn't review or test the new bun code?
The evidence that they didn't review it, is that a million line rewrite was merged 8 days after it began being written. It's simply not possible for a team that size to review that much code in that little time.
As far as testing - yes, they do have a test suite that it was checked against during the rewrite, but that still means that any behaviour that wasn't strictly tested for by that suite could have changed and it would still pass.