31–40 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
huh, is OpenAI embracing Zig specifically? TIL
It’s a joke about how Anthropic bought bun and then rewrote bun from zig to rust with a giant one week vibe code. The joke hinges on the fact that this would be the opposite (OpenAI, nub, rust to zig)
Respect for embracing existing tech instead of rewriting a worse version of it. Wonder where we would be today if all alternative-building effort went to Node instead (with proper leadership).
You might remember the io.js fork of Node.js back in 2014. Node was stagnating, a bunch of people forked it into io.js, which eventually got merged back into Node and got it back on track. Or, going further back, CoffeeScript, a "fork" of JS that had its best ideas adopted back into ES5. A small scrappy team can prove out a good idea because failure is not a catastrophic risk to them. In short, forks are part of a he…
Am I expected to be able to run this in production on the backend, or do I still need to transpile and bundle? Do we expect the performance and memory overhead to be negligible. What would be the expectations on terms of added attack surface?
NODE_COMPAT=0 nub index.ts
nub --node index.ts
Re: added attack surface: the most obvious one is that Nub loads .env files (same as Bun/Next/Vite) so be aware of that. All of Node's permission flags are passed through as well. I won't claim there's no additional attack surface, but it doesn't have much surface area, just a Rust wrapper that spawns `node` ultimately.
Respect for embracing existing tech instead of rewriting a worse version of it. Wonder where we would be today if all alternative-building effort went to Node instead (with proper leadership).
You might remember the io.js fork of Node.js back in 2014. Node was stagnating, a bunch of people forked it into io.js, which eventually got merged back into Node and got it back on track. Or, going further back, CoffeeScript, a "fork" of JS that had its best ideas adopted back into ES5. A small scrappy team can prove out a good idea because failure is not a catastrophic risk to them. In short, forks are part of a he…
I’m surprised to see this using a `--require` hook (rather than `--import`). Maybe something’s changed significantly since I was looking into building some similar functionality… but it makes me wonder about nuances in nub’s ESM support. (When I was investigating this it was very early in Node’s `--import` story, but there were several edge cases with the more common ESM-to-CJS approaches that I wanted to address. Mo…
We use this to register our preload purely for performance reasons. In this and many other cases CommonJS is still faster than ESM. Using --require is about 0.5ms overhead vs 4.6ms for --import (on my M1 Macbook Pro). Relatedly Node.js recently (2025) introduced a synchronous version of its resolver hook registration API (`module.registerHooks()`) specifically to improve performance over the old async `module.registe…
Respect for embracing existing tech instead of rewriting a worse version of it. Wonder where we would be today if all alternative-building effort went to Node instead (with proper leadership).
Fundamentally you can't fix a lot of things with this approach. Simple example: Node is the only serious OSS software I know of that has no way to document its config (in the config file itself). It's moronic! The Node people just adopted JSON without a thought, and then refused to consider any alternatives (even "JSON with comments"). When an organization digs into bad decisions, the only way to fix them is to start…
Nub could absolutely support a config file and use it to set NODE_OPTIONS or flags in the node child process. There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater due to DX concerns like this. That's a key part of the concept Nub is trying to prove. (To be clear I'm quite content to conform to Node's no-config-file policy at the moment.)
Will you be able to integrate aube updates after vendoring it? https://github.com/nubjs/nub/pull/81
We've already pulled changes since that PR landed.