It's not hallucination, it's a basic extrapolation. "Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs due to them using Zig" is the same statement as "using Zig resulted in Bun having an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs". It is then natural to ask whether their position is "using Zig results in an extremely high amount of crashes/bugs" in general.
That's a hell of a lot more than "basic extrapolation." You're misrepresenting the original claim to fight against one that's trivially easy to dispute. "Bun has had an extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs due to them using Zig" (which unlike Rust, doesn't prevent you from writing them) is a completely different statement than your "using Zig results in an extremely high amount of crashes/bugs." Implying that such a generalization was even on the table is insulting.
Yes, obviously you can write high-quality software in Zig. But does Zig categorically reject the kind of bugs Bun was suffering from? Rust does.
"Downstream of" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Language has an effect on, but in no way determines, the reliability of software written in it.
The original claim is one of determinism. Your use of the term "downstream" is hiding the distinction; it can be read in either way, so it bridges the gap between the position you want to defend ("using Zig causes a higher probability of memory bugs") and the position you're forced to defend ("using Zig results in extremely many memory bugs").
In short, I'm accusing you of doing a motte-and-bailey.
It's not deterministic, it's probabilistic. Bun does have memory bugs that would not be there if they'd written in safe Rust instead of Zig. You could imagine a scenario where ZigBun has zero memory issues, but it is not the most likely outcome, and is arguably an incredibly unlikely outcome given the entire history of software written in memory-unsafe languages.
I am less motte-and-bailey'ing, and you are more not subscribing to the principal of charity, choosing to interpret the original comment as its weakest possible version rather than the strongest.
It's generalizing from Bun (which might be especially tricky code) to other software that might not have the similar issues. There are lots of different kinds of software.
No, that's provably false by a fairly simple existence proof. If it was true that using C results in an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs", we would expect to not find any substantial pieces of software written in C without an "extremely high amount of crashes/memory bugs". Now where exactly you draw that line is necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary, but by any definition, I think we can all agree that SQLite does not fit that description. Yet SQLite is written in C. Therefore, we conclude that the statement must be false. QED.
Now C does have some aspects which make it more prone to crashes and memory bugs. The less strong statement of "using C results in a higher propensity for crashes/memory bugs than Rust" is absolutely true, I would argue. And both C++ and Rust inherit some (but not all, and not the same) of the aspects which make C prone to memory bugs. (So does Go, I would argue, but less than C++ and Zig.)
Bah waking up today to notice a typo, after the edit window. "And both C++ and Rust inherit some ... aspects" was of course meant to be "And both C++ and Zig inherit some ... aspects".
