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

I am worried about Bun

wwj.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 368 posts

Re: I am worried about Bun

#111

Post by silverwind »

ifwinterco wrote: post #95
hootz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is type stripping and is incompatible with syntax that requires transpilation, so it is not native TypeScript support.

Isn't that mostly just enums? Is there anything else that doesn't run as valid JS if you strip the types (and maybe some other extra keywords)out? Genuine question, in my head there's not much, but TS has a few weird corners I maybe haven't used

https://www.typescriptlang.org/tsconfig/#erasableSyntaxOnly covers them all, I strongly recommend running with that option enabled to be future-proof.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#112

Post by silverwind »

bombcar wrote: post #59
fhn wrote: post #51

I wonder why Anthropic chose to spend money on Bun when they could have easily spend that resource on Go which is fairly easy to use and fast. I'm sure their SWEs could easily everything things in Go. Anyone have insight on why?

Is Claude better with Javascript than it is with Go code? Seems like it could be true.

Problem with Go is the type system is rudimentary, so you can't "restrict" AIs as well as you could in Typescript.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#113

Post by gwd »

> But from the outside, Claude Code looks like a tool moving in the wrong direction. More restrictions, billing weirdness, surprise behavior based on text in commits. That is textbook enshittification.

I've never used Claude Code, but this person doesn't understand what "textbook enshittification" means. "Enshittification" is a feature of certain kinds of business models, progressing through the following stages:

1. Giving away a product free to users, subsidized by venture capital, to gain a monopoly

2. Switching to advertising, then abusing users on behalf of the real customers, advertisers

3. Using monopoly power to abuse real customers (advertisers) to extract as much money as possible

Anthropic's business model doesn't have a "user / customer" dichotomy; their paid users are their customers. And they don't have a monopoly they can use to extract money yet.

ETA: In other words, "Enshittification" isn't just random; you're making the user experience worse in order to make advertiser experience better; and then making advertiser experience worse in order to extract maximum profit. The only complaint that could vaguely be related to profit is the OpenClaw stuff, and that's entirely due to trying to keep the "all-you-can-eat" model for non-OpenClaw users, rather than having to switch everything to metered.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#114

Post by ashdksnndck »

stkdump wrote: post #109
AntonyGarand wrote: post #11

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Especially given the context of both of these different context: C…

It's interesting how quickly people buy the "abuse" line of thinking. We understood (and knew for a long time) that the large AI labs are not monetarily profiting from subscription users that make heavy use of their subscription. That is independent of which agent/harness is used. The fair/real price for profitable use is the pay per use token pricing. These labs play the game of trying to kill competition in the har…

> Basically the prime bet that they made (that one needs extremely expensive hardware to have useful AI) has already failed.

I thought the prime bet was that the winning lab who reaches takeoff through recursive self improvement will make a galactic superintelligence. Not saying I believe this but the people running the labs do. Under this scenario if you are a few months behind at the pivotal time you might as well not exist at all.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#115

Post by silverwind »

pkilgore wrote: post #67
remote-dev wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The built-in sqlite and testing functionality is the reason I started using it over pnpm/Node.

Node has both built-in sqlite and testing functionality. Lots of reasons to like bun! But these two are interesting ones...

I hope Node eventually gets a WebSocket server like Bun has.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#116

Post by spankalee »

smcl wrote: post #39
AntonyGarand wrote: post #11

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Especially given the context of both of these different context: C…

> Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. I think it is insane that people got into a situation where they had committed to a javascript runtime that had to "figure out how to monetize at some point". It is also bizarre that some people are still hopeful despite it being acquired by one of the most enormously unprofitable companies in the most enormously unprofitable sectors of ou…

I partially agree with you, but I also think that it's good that people can make something they want, that seems to have no monetization path, and have some hope of being bailed out.

It's not great that the search for profit will usually corrupt projects, but the other most common option is that the projects don't exist at all. It's very rare (or it used to be before this year) that someone can do something like this on their own with no compensation. So now at least Bun exists.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#117

Post by ahepp »

smcl wrote: post #39
AntonyGarand wrote: post #11

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Especially given the context of both of these different context: C…

> Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. I think it is insane that people got into a situation where they had committed to a javascript runtime that had to "figure out how to monetize at some point". It is also bizarre that some people are still hopeful despite it being acquired by one of the most enormously unprofitable companies in the most enormously unprofitable sectors of ou…

Are there any situations you would compare this to historically?

To me, the obvious comparison seems to be Docker. Their tooling revolutionized software development and made cgroups and containerization accessible to the masses. Yet they generally seem to have failed to extract payment from users, even with managed service opportunities.

It seems to me that there are substantial obstacles to monetizing a project licensed with even a weaker OSS license like MIT. I think this is especially true for projects that don’t have managed service / “open core” potential.

Any gratis project you rely on runs the risk that it will no longer be provided gratis. That alone is not a strong basis for making decisions.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#118

Post by redsocksfan45 »

dgellow wrote: post #71
JamesSwift wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I envy your experience. Its driving me crazy on a near daily basis now.

But are you saying the harness is driving you insane? Or the model? Because Bun is,only the harness, and that part has been improving over time if you stay on the stable channel

Which of the two is responsible for it ignoring being in Plan mode and trying to implement shit instead of just writing up a plan?

Re: I am worried about Bun

#119

Post by shimman »

jazzypants wrote: post #96
shimman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with the notion, but what is up with the dev community championing influencers that work no real jobs and just sell courses where they reread the docs to you at $500 a pop (this gent, $1k a pop)?

I'm not the biggest fan of the influencer community, but I think that it mostly boils down to many learners preferring video content over written material. I've gotten used to reading documentation now, but I remember it being extremely intimidating when I was first learning. It was nice to have someone break stuff down into simple terms for me. To be fair to Matt Pocock, I know he worked for Vercel and Stately for a…

No, look into his actual work history (sorry being a paid marketer isn't working as a dev). Was only a dev consultant for like two years before pivoting into full time influencer. Trust me, I know more about these types than any normal human should.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#120

Post by pjmlp »

ahepp wrote: post #117
smcl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. I think it is insane that people got into a situation where they had committed to a javascript runtime that had to "figure out how to monetize at some point". It is also bizarre that some people are still hopeful despite it being acquired by one of the most enormously unprofitable companies in the most enormously unprofitable sectors of ou…

Are there any situations you would compare this to historically? To me, the obvious comparison seems to be Docker. Their tooling revolutionized software development and made cgroups and containerization accessible to the masses. Yet they generally seem to have failed to extract payment from users, even with managed service opportunities. It seems to me that there are substantial obstacles to monetizing a project lice…

The audio and 3D card pioneers in the PC world.

The ones that were first to market went all bankrupt, or were acquired by others that came later into the scene.

Post reply on HN