perry VS bun

On other sites, like github and reddit. This exchange was funny though. He eventually gets called out by the other commenter to stop responding with an LLM: https://github.com/PerryTS/perry/issues/139#issuecomment-429...

Hey HN — I've been building Perry, a compiler that takes TypeScript and emits native binaries. No V8, no runtime, no Electron. It maps to platform-native UI widgets: AppKit on macOS, UIKit on iOS, Android Views on Android, GTK4 on Linux, Win32 on Windows.

Pry is the first real app built with it — a JSON viewer, deliberately small.

It's in the iOS/macOS App Store and Google Play right now. Linux build works, Windows is waiting on code signing.

The compiler itself is written in Rust. It handles TypeScript parsing, type checking, and lowers to native code. The UI bindings aren't a wrapper library — the compiler generates the actual platform API calls.

This is a building-in-public thing. Pry is the proof-of-concept. The bigger goal is a full IDE. Happy to answer questions about the compiler architecture, the app store submission process, or anything else.

Compiler repo: https://github.com/PerryTS/perry

what a horrible typo with the scoped name, it should be `npx @baggiiiie/yadiff https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30412`!

> Comparing unsafe counts to UV makes no sense here.

Agreed. The better comparison is Deno, which does roughly the same thing (wrapping a c/c++ javascript engine to create a serverside runtime). Deno was smaller, but per line of code/file it had just over half the unsafe as the bun slop rewrite. There are also examples of unsafe blocks that are just locally incorrect [0], meaning you don't even need to read outside the function and it's definition to determine that the entity doing the porting (in this case claude) didn't understand how unsafe rust works.

> I am skeptical why Bun was even an acquisition target in the first place, other than pulling stunts like this.

From what I've heard, it sounds like the author had become fully hooked by LLM coding before the acquisition, so I don't think we know enough to conclude that this was premeditated by Anthropic. I think the more likely trigger is that Bun had just bragged about how they'd forked the zig language for a performance increase and attacked zig for it's no-AI policy, only for a zig core team member to point out that the code couldn't be upstreamed even if it had been hand written [1].

The better point, IMO, is how this is an example of how AI use/addiction makes developers who fall into it loose the ability to judge code quality, particularly for code they prompted for themselves. From what I've heard of Mr. Sumner and the team at oven from before AI, I very much doubt code of this poor quality would have been allowed anywhere near the main branch before LLMs.

[0] https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/blob/d2a6506dfad4c3ef3dddb9ae...

[1] https://ziggit.dev/t/bun-s-zig-fork-got-4x-faster-compilatio...

better-sqlite3, the usual answer, is a native addon. Bun still cannot load its addon reliably (oven-sh/bun#4290).

https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30921

> A CVE wasn’t announced for an HTTP Request Smuggling vulnerability

Even before the acquisition of Anthropic, there had never been a single vulnerability report.

https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/security

Do not use this in production.

> It's not like image manipulation is a poorly understood problem

You would think, but the initial implementation of this stripped ICC profiles (https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30197), and while that was fixed in time for the release, it still currently doesn't understand EXIF rotation metadata (https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30235) or high-bit-depth images (https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30462)

Jarred-Sumner posted on May 08, 2026