Two weeks of actual work? Or two weeks because you'd only be able to work on it for 20-30 minutes per day at the end of the day when you're already tired?

The latter of course! It's a whole new world of possibilities

Can this also affect stack usage? Like if `x` gets dropped before `y` is introduced, can `y` reuse `x`'s stack space (let's assume they are same size/alignment). Or does the compiler already do that if it can see that one is not used after the other is introduced?

Conceivably, yes.

> I never understood there is a relationship between quadratic equations and some kind of underlying mathematic geometric symmetry.

In a polynomial equation, the coefficients can be written as symmetric functions of the roots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieta%27s_formulas - symmetric means it doesn't matter how you label the roots, because it would not make sense if you could say "r1 is 3, r2 is 7" and get a different set of coefficients compared to "r1 is 7, r2 is 3".

Since the coefficients are symmetric functions of the roots, that means that you can't write the roots as a function of the coefficients - there's no way to break that symmetry. This is where root extraction comes in - it's not a function. A function has to return 1 answer for a given input, but root extraction gives you N answers for the nth root of a given input. So that's how we're able to "choose" roots - consider the expression (r1 - r2) for a quadratic equation. That's not symmetric (the answer depends on which one we label as r1 and which we label as r2), so we can't write that expression as a function of the coefficients. But what about (r1 - r2)^2? That expression IS symmetric - you get the same answer regardless of how you label the roots. If we expand that out we get r1^2 - 2r1r2 + r2^2, which is symmetric, which means we can write it as a function of the coefficients. So we've come up with an expression whose square root depends on the way we've labeled the roots (using Vieta's formulas you can show it's b^2-4c, which you might recognize from the quadratic equation).

Galois theory is used to show that root extraction can only break certain types of symmetries, and that fifth degree polynomials can exhibit root symmetries that are not breakable by radicals.

The Gehry story is cool but you skipped over the important part.

Those things are not protected expression in the US.

Dell, HP, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Ford...it's not exactly unheard of to name your company after yourself.

Exactly. A huge number of household brands are named after people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_named_after_...

> don't voluntarily gift money to a literal billionaire.

The entire point of this post is that the money is not going to him.

I find comments like this fascinating, because you're implicitly evaluating a counterfactual where Bun was built with Rust (or some other "interesting" language). Maybe Bun would be better if it were built in Rust. But maybe it would have been slower (either at runtime or development speed) and not gotten far enough along to be acquired by one of the hottest companies in the world. There's no way to know. Why did Anthropic choose Bun instead of Deno, if Deno is written in a better language?

Because maybe they reached out to them, and they didn't took the money, while Bun folks business model wasn't working out?

Who knows?

Besides, how are they going to get back the money spent on the acquisition?

Many times the answer to acquisitions has nothing to do with technology.

> Claude Code, FactoryAI, OpenCode, and others are all built with Bun.

Anthropic chose to use Bun to build their tooling.

We can think of they making bun an internal tool, push roadmap items that fit their internal products, whatever, which doesn't answer the getting back money of the acquisition.

Profit in those products has to justify having now their own compiler team for a JavaScript runtime.

Don't engage with this guy, he shows up in every one of these threads to pattern match back to his heyday without considering any of the nuance of what is actually different this time.

Look an admirer!

> Why did Anthropic choose Bun instead of Deno, if Deno is written in a better language?

Something about moral and philosophical flexibility.

There's nothing inherently Zig about this - it's some random person who is not affiliated with the project in any way. They could have done the exact same BS copyright-infringing AI slop project in any language.

How are you supposed to know that if you're evaluating whether to use a tool / service?

You could just read their whitepapers and accept them at face value. What other major SaaS providers are publishing about their technical countermeasures against insider risk?

If a company publishes loads of articles about how they have technical controls for privacy and security, through encryption and compartmentalization and code review and build provenance and so forth, and all the people who work/worked at said company are always whining about how onerous those processes are, then what gives you reason to doubt it?

I wish I had an answer for you. I spend at least half of the past year trying to make that decision. The internal LLM that can read all the docs and code, you'd think, could get the context to know what the optimal state is, but it easily gets confused by out of date documentation and recommends paths that are going to be marked as "why didn't you use the new thing?" at review time, OR it builds out a solution using "oh, this isn't ready for use yet" parts.