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

Bun 1.4

bun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 198 posts

Re: Bun 1.4

#61

Post by ralusek »

cube00 wrote: post #3

It's weird their promotional video repeats "you can do without installing dependencies", if I want headless browser testing is that wrong to install a project that offers that? Why would I want everything reimplemented in this massive binary? Why would Bun be anymore in touch with nuances of all these different technologies then individual projects dedicated to their own speciality? JS Runtime, Package Manager, Test…

Things like headless browsers are really annoying to include in FaaS environments, but are super useful. If they're in the runtime binary already, that'd be great.

Re: Bun 1.4

#63

Post by mpalmer »

suriyaG wrote: post #25

This is awesome. slightly aside, but I find it worrying that our industry treats a lot of cannon events in stride and don't organize around that idea or to mitigate the risks around that idea. things that everybody basically just complained but ended up working out fine, - Bun rust rewrite. - Elon Musk firing 80% of twitter by stack ranking employees by code committed - autocompletion basically just taking over every…

How are you deciding that either of these things worked out fine

Re: Bun 1.4

#67

Post by npn »

I wonder how many posts in this thread are AI generated or shill posted.

nobody ever reports that they installed it and ran it on production or something.

personally I only use bun to replace yarn as script executor now. Used to follow it and tried to replace node server sveltkit runtime with bun, but it didn't work reliably so I stopped the experiment.

it's too bad. when you are spoiled by crystal/go/rust written servers that consume 20MB-50MB ram only, seeing a nodejs server consume 400-500MB ram looks ridiculous bun was such an attractive option.

Re: Bun 1.4

#68

Post by barnabee »

cube00 wrote: post #3

It's weird their promotional video repeats "you can do without installing dependencies", if I want headless browser testing is that wrong to install a project that offers that? Why would I want everything reimplemented in this massive binary? Why would Bun be anymore in touch with nuances of all these different technologies then individual projects dedicated to their own speciality? JS Runtime, Package Manager, Test…

Ideally everything not built specifically for any given project is part of the OS or some other battle tested, supported system package.

For example, I might well choose to reimplement eg a subset of TOML parsing to avoid the dependency risk.

I don’t write JavaScript/TypeScript, but if I did, I’d find Bun’s “batteries included” approach compelling, at least to the extent I decide I can trust Bun, after due diligence

Re: Bun 1.4

#69

Post by ivanjermakov »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #4
cube00 wrote: post #3

It's weird their promotional video repeats "you can do without installing dependencies", if I want headless browser testing is that wrong to install a project that offers that? Why would I want everything reimplemented in this massive binary? Why would Bun be anymore in touch with nuances of all these different technologies then individual projects dedicated to their own speciality? JS Runtime, Package Manager, Test…

Its strange how flip floppy the JS ecosystem is, because go back literally 1-3 years or so and the BIGGEST complaint was the lack of a standard library and having to use a package for everything. But now that Bun is actually doing it its somehow bad? Its also still open source, so those implementations you mention need dedicated teams can still get the attention they need by the community if needed. I'm on the side t…

Standard library is up to the TC39 committee, not a VC-funded all-in-one JS runtime owned by Anthropic.

Re: Bun 1.4

#70

Post by barnabee »

pier25 wrote: post #8
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its strange how flip floppy the JS ecosystem is, because go back literally 1-3 years or so and the BIGGEST complaint was the lack of a standard library and having to use a package for everything. But now that Bun is actually doing it its somehow bad? Its also still open source, so those implementations you mention need dedicated teams can still get the attention they need by the community if needed. I'm on the side t…

I agree and I also wish Node did more. Otoh should a standard lib give you absolutely everything? Probably not. There needs to be a line somewhere. Right now Bun’s policy on this seems to be "whatever Jarred feels like should be in there".

My line for exclusion from standard library is a library that’s any one of:

- not obviously/generally useful (i.e. useless or too specific/should be a program not a library)

- obviously trivial

- already available (open source) elsewhere by a credible team that supporte and maintains it

Anything else… put it in the stdlib

Post reply on HN