Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

trigger.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

#31

Post by pjmlp »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #25
pjmlp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally we would still only use JavaScript on the browser, personally I don't care about about the healthy competition, rather that npm actually works when I am stuck writing server side code I didn't ask for.

FE-BE standardization is efficient in terms of labor and code migration portability, but I really like the idea of static compilation and optimization of the BE in production.. there's absolutely no need or reason for the BE to do dynamic anything in prod. As long as it retains profiling inspectability when things go wrong.

Except we have moved beyond that with SaaS products,agents, AI workflows.

The only reason I touch JavaScript on the backend instead of .NET, Java, Go, Rust, OCaml, Haskell,.... are SDKs and customers that don't let other option than JavaScript all over the place.

Thus my point of view is that I couldn't care less about competition between JavaScript runtimes.

Re: We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

#32

Post by mannycalavera42 »

LaSombra wrote: post #23
fleebee wrote: post #16

I'm puzzled by the title of this post. From what I can gather most, if not all, of the performance improvements came from sacking SQLite and Zod. They applied optimizations that cut CPU time by ~40% to the Bun version before comparing it with Node. Claiming 5x throughput from "replacing Node.js with Bun" is a wild misrepresentation of the findings.

Don’t let facts get in the way of a catchy headline

:love

Re: We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

#33

Post by whizzter »

fleebee wrote: post #16

I'm puzzled by the title of this post. From what I can gather most, if not all, of the performance improvements came from sacking SQLite and Zod. They applied optimizations that cut CPU time by ~40% to the Bun version before comparing it with Node. Claiming 5x throughput from "replacing Node.js with Bun" is a wild misrepresentation of the findings.

And they include "phase 3 opts" in the phase2 benchmark, so the move to Bun also includes improvements from removing "safeParse". So Node might've been at more than 40% of the performance.

It's sad since these kinds of numbers are interesting, but when there's blatant misrepresentations it just create a stink.

Re: We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

#35

Post by burnt-resistor »

senorrib wrote: post #30
burnt-resistor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FE-BE standardization is efficient in terms of labor and code migration portability, but I really like the idea of static compilation and optimization of the BE in production.. there's absolutely no need or reason for the BE to do dynamic anything in prod. As long as it retains profiling inspectability when things go wrong.

That doesn’t align with my experience. It feels more like a trojan horse. Client and Server rarely (should) share code, and people that are really good at one discipline aren’t that good at the other. Maybe LLMs will change that.

That's a negative FUD way to judge it.

C. 2015 one of my friends was a Django dev but moved to Express/node because that's where the cool kids went, it was one less language, and allowed them to move logic FE->BE and BE->FE much easier. Also, a bunch of Rails people left to Node/FE JS and Rust (BE). JS/TS is still an irreducible requirement for FE. There is no law that either grand unified frameworks must be used nor entirely separate FE and BE must be maintained separately and are somehow mysterious, arcane arts. Not sharing code when/where it is possible and appropriate is duplicating effort.. like client- and server-side input validations doing exactly the same thing.

Re: We replaced Node.js with Bun for 5x throughput

#36

Post by aaztehcy »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #35
senorrib wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t align with my experience. It feels more like a trojan horse. Client and Server rarely (should) share code, and people that are really good at one discipline aren’t that good at the other. Maybe LLMs will change that.

That's a negative FUD way to judge it. C. 2015 one of my friends was a Django dev but moved to Express/node because that's where the cool kids went, it was one less language, and allowed them to move logic FE->BE and BE->FE much easier. Also, a bunch of Rails people left to Node/FE JS and Rust (BE). JS/TS is still an irreducible requirement for FE. There is no law that either grand unified frameworks must be used nor…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN