Not that it's a particularly accurate stat, but:

https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3...

119 open, 885 closed

https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state...

10 open, 46 closed

You want a better source than the actual author of Bun?

Authors can't exaggerate? Maybe some actual numbers can convince people.

The cool thing is the author doesn't actually have to convince anyone

Here: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%22Segm...

Around 2500 issues with segmentation fault.

As compared with 41 for deno

https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%22Se...

With the total number of issues being 16,458 for bun and 14,259 for deno.

I believe the author is the creator of Bun.

Is he working for Anthropic now?

anthropic bought bun recently

That's exactly my point. The fact they created Bun does not mean they will do what's better for Bun and the people using it.

FTA:

> why: I am so tired of worrying about & spending lots of time fixing memory leaks and crashes and stability issues. it would be so nice if the language provided more powerful tools for preventing these things.

Not a hard number obviously but a clear indication those issues exist.

I don’t understand: just use an agent to find all memory leaks and segfaults. I don’t get the argument if you are gonna vibe code anyway.

With unlimited tokens make it a lint rule or auto formatter.

LLMs are a force multiplier, not magic. They benefit from good tooling.

Literally the model “mythos” is being marketed towards finding these exact type of bugs used for exploitation. I really don’t understand the argument: are agents not good at findings memory management issues? What’s the gap?

If you look at percent of segfault errors in each repo, Bun had a much larger percent. Although don't quote on me.