<story><title>Bun 1.0 announcement [video]</title><url>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsnCpESUEqM</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>j-pb</author><text>Despite the 1.0 release tag, given that it&amp;#x27;s written in Zig, which is super duper Alpha, I&amp;#x27;d trust it only as far as I can throw a floppy with its source code.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Matthias247</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t have any opinion on Bun itself. But as someone who is pretty experienced in running large scale services, I wouldn&amp;#x27;t have a problem to use a tool that is marked as stable but internally built on top of unstable tools. As long as compilation is mostly deterministic (which is usually given for compilers), a good set of unit and integration tests should prove that the software is actually doing what its supposed to do and can be trusted with workloads. If those tests are not available, then even using a mature language might not provide a guarantee that the actual product is better.&lt;p&gt;Sure - the Bun developers might have a super hard time if Zig changes its syntax, library APIs or other things. But that would be a maintenance hassle for the Bun developers, and not necessarily for the Bun users.</text></comment>
<story><title>Bun 1.0 announcement [video]</title><url>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsnCpESUEqM</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>j-pb</author><text>Despite the 1.0 release tag, given that it&amp;#x27;s written in Zig, which is super duper Alpha, I&amp;#x27;d trust it only as far as I can throw a floppy with its source code.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nifty_beaks</author><text>I completely forgot it was written in Zig. Thanks for the heads up. I completely agree, I don&amp;#x27;t see how this can be labeled 1.0 release.</text></comment>