Writing a useless comment just to tell you: oh the irony, writing a garbage comment for calling out a garbage comment. I'm lost in the layers of slurry.
At least my original comment started from a point of reference. There's nothing in theshrike79's response that is of any value to improving the conversation, so why should they not be called out for it? Isn't that a part of HN's approach? I've been called out for it (rightfully) many times.
The fact that you don't think I realize what I did is also rather entertaining. Thanks for mansplaining, though! I was lost until you saved me.
As opposed to every commit abd line of code being unsafe? They use a lot of C/C++ libraries with their own code so unsafe isn't even a a problem in most places they use it.
Please try to interpret comments in the context of the discussion, not floating freely in a vacuum. The context of the discussion is the Bun port's excessive use of unreviewed unsafe blocks. unsafe in Rust can easily be misused to create Undefined Behavior, which renders any safety guarantees otherwise ensured by Rust's borrow checker invalid.
> Does bun actually do anything insane like that in its unsafe blocks?
Who knows? At 10k unreviewed uses of unsafe, I'd guess there are quite a few incorrect ones. LLMs don't produce perfect code (neither do humans), so there's a high probability that at least some of those create UB.
Of course they’ll iterate and remove the unsafe bits which were necessary for the transition