Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
dev.hexagon.56k.guru
Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#2Bun's #1 killer feature is that web application tooling has become a nightmare that everyone dreads dealing with. Bun promises one tool designed for DX to solve bundling, testing, runtime, and more.
Even if Bun didn't have a better performance story, I would evaluate switching to it to reduce project complexity.
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#3I wasn't expecting a deep and thorough comparison just from the headline... but the feature list and comparison text here is worse than I thought it would be, bordering on useless.
"Built in" means nothing because the value prop of node compared to the other two is the ecosystem and maturity. Do you care if your linting tool is built in if it's buggy and regularly releases breaking changes? "Secure by default" in particular means nothing by itself here either.
Bun specifically promises better compatibility with existing npm modules then Deno so the comparison here is much different than the chart would lead you to believe.
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#4Deno does have a built-in package manager[1], the fact that it's not home-grown shouldn't be held against it.
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#5It was pretty clear what Bun’s advantages vs Node are, but less so vs Deno. This helps clarify it. It’s mainly that Bun has a built-in package manager* and minifier and Deno doesn’t. And Deno has a few extras Bun doesn’t. I imagine those will equalize somewhat with future releases.
This is a helpful overview, though I would also like to see a deep dive on some categories, like security (Deno permissions vs Bun trustedDependencies).
* Or maybe Deno has one too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37475462
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#6I wasn't expecting a deep and thorough comparison just from the headline... but the feature list and comparison text here is worse than I thought it would be, bordering on useless. "Built in" means nothing because the value prop of node compared to the other two is the ecosystem and maturity. Do you care if your linting tool is built in if it's buggy and regularly releases breaking changes? "Secure by default" in par…
> Do you care if your linting tool is built in if it's buggy and regularly releases breaking changes?
In general I would expect a linting tool or any other component that is a first class feature of the app would be less likely to be released with bugs and breaking changes than a third party one.
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#7Bun's #1 killer feature is that web application tooling has become a nightmare that everyone dreads dealing with. Bun promises one tool designed for DX to solve bundling, testing, runtime, and more. Even if Bun didn't have a better performance story, I would evaluate switching to it to reduce project complexity.
Does not Deno aim for exactly the same?
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#8Isn't Deno under the strong commercial grip of a couple of corporate companies, including the one that develops it?
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#9What about a built-in standard library? That seems somewhat important.
Re: Deno vs. Bun vs. Node.js: A feature comparison
#10So where does all this backend activity leave frontend tooling? It seems the divide only grows despite the upstream attempts by the ES committee to bridge the gap.