Live data from Hacker News

Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

tipiirai.com

41–50 of 153 posts

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#41
post #17
post #3

What is the right recommendation at this point for a Node alternative? Deno?

What’s wrong with node? Genuine question

It's 1/2 baked in everything it tries to do.

You need a "separate" tool called npm to install packages. It's dead slow so they added corepack. Another extra tool. Then you use it to install yarn or pnpm. Another extra tool. It might still be slower than bun...

In the past you need to transpile typescript with other tools. It can only run js out of the box. The later fix was a wasm build, which means slower than it could be. Another 1/2 job.

Many more examples in many areas but anything Node tries to do itself feels 1/2 baked.

Bun and Deno are faster than Node because it is a 1/2 job at its core. It has v8. It has the tools. It could be done but no. It did nothing for years until Deno and Bun came on the scene to nudge it.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#43
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with just using Node? It's stable, has a good (and growing) standard library and has enough backing to be self sustaining. edit: There's also nub which is built on top of Node.js and removes some rough/legacy edges: https://github.com/nubjs/nub

Node.js is virtually the only platform not supporting the Fetchable convention: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/63096 https://fetchable.org/

That's a fair criticism... they move slower but mostly because they were the first. They would have to build a new Server and Request/Response primitives from scratch, or deprecate what they already have, or somehow shoehorn the existing types into the new ones.

They do seem to have just merged in support for Web Workers though, which I've been following for a while: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/43583

So I don't think they're opposed to standardising, but it's trickier when you have some past cruft built up. Lets not forget that the fetch() standard was built for browsers, and is a bit of a stretch to make it work on servers at all. You have to diverge from the fetch spec to even make it make sense in a server environment (with things like Cookies handling off the top of my head).

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#44
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Node.js is virtually the only platform not supporting the Fetchable convention: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/63096 https://fetchable.org/

That's a fair criticism... they move slower but mostly because they were the first. They would have to build a new Server and Request/Response primitives from scratch, or deprecate what they already have, or somehow shoehorn the existing types into the new ones. They do seem to have just merged in support for Web Workers though, which I've been following for a while: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/43583 So I d…

Same thing can be said about Streams in Node.js as well. They had a working streams implementation before the Web Streams API was in browsers (iirc). So implementing the standard now means removing what's already there, or breaking a lot of existing code.

Which leads to confusing things like the fact that there are two streams APIs in Node now:

Streams: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/stream.html

Web Streams: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/webstreams.html

And they have to support going back and forth between the two: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/webstreams.html#nodejs-st...

It's exactly the same story for crypto as well. Node created it's own standard, Web standards emerged, Node has to support both:

https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/crypto.html

https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/webcrypto.html

Fwiw I think it's good they're not removing the legacy code, but they should probably do a big cleanup major release and lean into the modern standards and remove the old stuff. But there's obviously push back in doing so... and probably stuff you can do in the old modules that you can't do in the new and vice versa.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#45
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with just using Node? It's stable, has a good (and growing) standard library and has enough backing to be self sustaining. edit: There's also nub which is built on top of Node.js and removes some rough/legacy edges: https://github.com/nubjs/nub

It consolidates a lot of really annoying nits and quality of life aspects like bundling, module resolution, testing, env handling, etc. Node is just the runtime and still would require libs like esbuild, jest/vitest, dotenv, and so on. It's genuinely nice to have those out of the box, and generally in Bun the performance is quite significantly better in places that matter.

Let me address each one in turn:

- esbuild - this is normally for TS compilation, which Node can run natively now by stripping types: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/typescript.html#type-stri...

- jest/vitest: Node has a test runner: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/test.html

- dotenv: Node can read .env files: https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/cli.html#--env-filefile

Performance, maybe you're right - but if you're doing any IO, I doubt the runtime is really the bottleneck.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#47
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how have the last few months not looked good for Bun, exactly? The article answers this. hint: they're not shipping. > I get it, you don't like AI or you like Zig over Rust, or whatever The article doesn't argue for either of these. hint: it's arguing that the team is not shipping. > Terrible argument, and not really an argument at all. It's an argument for the devs not shipping > I agree, so look at the code and p…

> The article answers this. hint: they're not shipping. They're shipping though. Claude Code and many others use it. There's just not been a "public" release.

In other words, it hasn't shipped.

The bun rewrite is looked to as proof that this sort of full-throttle vibecoding is the future of software development, at least for large porting projects like this one, and for many people on this site that is a high stakes question.

To prove that, a proper release is needed, and the Bun community needs to adopt it. There's a huge partisan eagerness to declare the Claude Code release or anecdotal experiences on the canary as victory, but the viability of 1.4 hasn't been demonstrated until it has been released and adopted by the bulk of the community.

There isn't actually any hurry on that. Nobody needs Bun 1.4 tomorrow. It's Jarred that keeps saying it'll be released tomorrow, while the code churns at an astonishing rate (see below). People with a skeptical outlook will inevitably suspect that he doesn't have confidence in the release and is struggling to acquire it.

Github insights for the last week:

> Excluding merges, 57 authors have pushed 349 commits to main and 6892 commits to all branches.

> On main, 2026 files have changed and there have been 189,502 additions and 133,836 deletions

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11k out of a million. I wish I had a project under 1% of "dead code".

there are linters that check for dead code (depending on your language / ecosystem), it should always be 0%

I mean, how do you check that your frontend code (possibly not even managed by your team) is calling and needs all of your backend endpoints? I'm sure it can be done, and it probably should, but saying it should always be 0% is not very pragmatic.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#49
For me the real test will be maintainability going forwards. Not a JS user.

I suppose it’s one thing to rewrite code and make tests pass. But a lot of my own CPU cycles when coding go to making the code understandable, modular, editable etc. IME Claude is not great on these.

Maybe it doesn’t matter? Maybe the spaghetti makes sense to Claude, and when you say “hey add this feature”, no problem?

But maybe it will turn into a worse ball of spaghetti, with no nicely curated tests, hacks on hacks on hacks and never ending loops of whackamole of “just change this one line and rerun tests”.

I can imagine both - let’s see.

Re: Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good?

#50

Yet another clickbait making outrageous assertions. Fwiw I don’t think anyone’s reputation is on the line and so far, you’ve offered only anecdotal evidence at best. Things like this should be backed by stats and community surveys and a whole lot more. I didn’t see anything about number of downloads or any of the usual metrics used to judge software these days Your whole scientific endeavor in this seemed to thrive o…

The article is about the upcoming 1.4 release. The article lists various promised release dates, are they incorrect?

I haven’t verified the dates of the tweets. But it is a huge leap from a delayed release to a major conclusion that “the rewrite is not looking good”.
Post reply on HN