[elktown]

It's depressing seeing so little critical thinking despite clear and obvious incentives (Bun now being part of Anthropic) behind the reckless decisions that's been made here. Judging by this thread a well-formed article is all that's required for lots of people to just take everything at face value since it confirms the biases of what's currently fashionable.

[perching_aix]

I'm similarly distraught by comments like this. They are a staple, and they always fail their own standards. Critical thinking would lead me to believe that your judgement is heavily clouded, and that it is way more likely you're the one who's biased; either to find other people to be generally below you, or to find people being receptive to this effort any positively to be simply wrong. I'm even wondering if this is a stock comment of sorts.

Strong subjective judgements about an inexact but large sounding fraction of people, without any actual details, is a red flag the size of a skyscraper. And to top it all off, your conclusion is extremely convenient too: you're right, people are wrong, despite the blatant facts otherwise. Not exactly the hallmark of a particularly robust position, not for me anyways.

[pohl]

What specific critical thought(s) do you wish were voiced?

[elktown]

That this is a technological decision rather than rationalizations (e.g. fixing self-inflicted problems are now marketed as a rewrite win) that Rust is a better fit for an Anthropic-owned project.

[perching_aix]

Indeed as the developers behind Bun, it would be rather difficult for them to not be the originators of the bugs that they have now fixed with this.

Why is your unsupported speculation about the guy (or the people above him) supposedly deciding that "Rust being a better fit for an Anthrophic-owned project" a critical insight exactly? You not being convinced by the rationale presented does not mean he himself wasn't. Do you imagine critical thinking as just coming up with and preferring (to you) plausible-sounding alternative explanations?

Because respectfully, that's very much not how I understand the word, and I'd hope most people do not either. Maybe that's the issue. Post-hoc rationalization being a rather shaky gate with people (and AI) anyways.

Worse still, neither of the options you present are trustworthy summaries necessarily in the first place. From the blogpost:

> What if, instead, I spend a week testing if Anthropic's new model can rewrite Bun in Rust?

That sounds to me like something of an excited but cautious dare, not an arbitrary technological decision, nor some hyper-strictly rationale-supported one. It's the same kind of exploratory excitement anyone who used these things at all would be familiar with: you have an unlikely project idea, with some contentious details that are fair (see their blogpost), and some that would be simply annoying to justify (see your comment). Buuuut you also have heaps of corpo money, a lingering suspicion and interest, and AI tokens to burn. And so "fuck it, we ball". Not much to believe on it when it's a shared experience. And it's not because of just having read so somewhere, despite your assertions otherwise.