> Did they even claim it was "memory-safe"?

they didn't,

actually the port is trying to be mostly 1:1 and in turn is mostly unsafe rust, which means no benefits initially

but also doing the 1:1 port to mostly unsafe rust is also only the first step of a full port, you then incrementally go through it fixing issues and remove "unsafe" usage. (And long term likely also doing some refactoring to using more idiomatic rust, but that has less priority).

The problem is there was no blog port describing the whole thing to someone without contextual knowledge. Instead just linked PRs which is in this case somewhat close to a "as if nearly all people only read the HN headline" case :/

Like a more context giving version of the first HN post would have something on the line of `Show HN: Bun is porting to safe rust (PR link), starting with an AI based automatized port to mostly unsafe rust which once it behaves mostly the same as Bun in the test suite will likely be merged. But must be followed up with incremental PRs to remove unsafeness, and likely also a lot of unsoundness related to the way it's ported (some explanation about why this port will have unsoundness).`