alt Hacker News> Seems like the core of these issues was a Claude-coauthored PR: https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/33208
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the linked PR. Using AI here is not really at fault here - it was just a giant rewrite that replaced how we do `node:http` in Deno. Replacing the engine while driving is never easy and we did the best we could. While we have a lot of test coverage and we use tests directly from Node.js codebase, we just don't catch everything. We're constantly working on improving the situation and I'm sorry you hit a problem. I can assure you that we are fixing all Node compat bugs as quickly as possible.
Replies
> Rewrite the entire node:http stack to use llhttp (Node.js's HTTP parser)
Can we please not turn Deno into junk? If you do the above -- what's the point of Deno?
Once you bolt everything on like that you might as well just use Node.
Deno started off with its own tools. Bun has managed a good balance between compatibility and its own thing (the recent moves aside) without resorting to these tactics...
Of course the AI is not at fault, you were responsible as an engineer and you abdicated your responsibility
> Using AI here is not really at fault here
Maybe reality isn't represented by the git logs, but according to them, you appear to have composed, reviewed and merged 131 commits affecting 58 files and 6000 lines -- a task that you say amounts to "replacing the engine while driving" -- in the span of one week.
If that's accurate, of course your reliance on AI is at fault here. It invites you to mistake velocity for quality and conflate test satisfaction for completion.
Without AI, this effort would likely have taken much longer and an experienced team would have approached it with due meticulousness, being especially stringent in review. Absorbed in it, the work would have weighed on their unconscious while they slept, with "Ah shoot, did I consider XYZ?" moments striking them in the shower. Ideally, familiar with the specific contributors (i.e. you) and their style of work, the reviewer who later consider merging the work would have ideas what to watch out for and would spend extra time looking at the details you might not have fully considered. It's a whole decades-matured craft practice that can do a pretty good job of making sure that a refactor of this scale doesn't land in main too broken.
And while that version still probably wouldn't have been entirely flawless either, or might never have even been attempted because of its greater calendar and attention burden, that doesn't mean that using AI wasn't responsible for why and how this version is broken.
This is exactly how AI makes things worse and why many people are wary of relying on third-party projects that embrace it too blithely. If you're going to use it, that's great, and maybe it will help you keep landing big features more quickly than otherwise -- but at least accept responsibility for the tradeoffs that you're inviting when you do so.