21–30 of 56 posts
So 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.
There’s an important column missing in the table: ownership. Both Bun and Deno are made by companies with heavy VC investment. Node is not. Don’t want to state the obvious but those VCs want to see a return on their investment and that makes me very hesitant to invest in Bun or Deno, especially at this early stage. Don’t know if it’s coincidence or if the competition has lit a fire under the Node project but it’s rec…
That is true. Both deno and bun runtimes are released under MIT license, and might potentially outlive the companies behind them.
Bun'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.
Bun'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.
I think that in general, tooling is underrated. In many ways, tooling is more important than the language itself (although some language features are intertwined with the tooling story). And I don’t mean more features, but rather consistency, reproducibility, simplicity, etc. Great tools have knock on effects. Good dependency managers improve the ecosystem. Fast language servers can enable interactive dev style. And…
Bun is getting a lot of hype due to all the press, but almost everyone is just echoing Bun's docs and marketing material and lack direct experience using it. I haven't done a deep dive into Bun yet, but I have tried porting a legacy project to it. Hit a lot of issues after a few hours of hacking around. It wouldn't correctly install node modules because of opt-in dependency lifecycles (and maybe other issues?) and th…
I think people are surprised that the performance claims don’t completely disappear with real world scenarios. It seems like a lot of eventually successful platforms began in the same way: the claims about improvements are real, and there are still a lot of rough edges.
Bun is getting a lot of hype due to all the press, but almost everyone is just echoing Bun's docs and marketing material and lack direct experience using it. I haven't done a deep dive into Bun yet, but I have tried porting a legacy project to it. Hit a lot of issues after a few hours of hacking around. It wouldn't correctly install node modules because of opt-in dependency lifecycles (and maybe other issues?) and th…
There was discussion about this the other day. It's marketed as a "drop-in" replacement but from perusing HN and elsewhere I see people having issues with real projects. It looks like a promising project, which I hope succeeds, but there also seems to be an unfortunate amount of marketing that, as you note, is being uncritically repeated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true. Both deno and bun runtimes are released under MIT license, and might potentially outlive the companies behind them.
So this is a good thing with regards to your parent comment? I.e., should we feel safe using Bun despite heavy VC investment?
Bun'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.
I think that in general, tooling is underrated. In many ways, tooling is more important than the language itself (although some language features are intertwined with the tooling story). And I don’t mean more features, but rather consistency, reproducibility, simplicity, etc. Great tools have knock on effects. Good dependency managers improve the ecosystem. Fast language servers can enable interactive dev style. And…
There’s an important column missing in the table: ownership. Both Bun and Deno are made by companies with heavy VC investment. Node is not. Don’t want to state the obvious but those VCs want to see a return on their investment and that makes me very hesitant to invest in Bun or Deno, especially at this early stage. Don’t know if it’s coincidence or if the competition has lit a fire under the Node project but it’s rec…
Its all about how it integrates and how it avoids vendor lock in.
There’s an important column missing in the table: ownership. Both Bun and Deno are made by companies with heavy VC investment. Node is not. Don’t want to state the obvious but those VCs want to see a return on their investment and that makes me very hesitant to invest in Bun or Deno, especially at this early stage. Don’t know if it’s coincidence or if the competition has lit a fire under the Node project but it’s rec…
My positive experience with NextJS by VC backed Vercel ($2.5bn valuation) makes me not skeptical of a package by mere nature of it being maintained and marketed by a for profit company with heavy VC investment. Its all about how it integrates and how it avoids vendor lock in.