I think part of the issue is that a lot of the changes have been fairly incremental, and therefore fairly easy to include back into NodeJS. Or they've been things that make getting started with Bun easier, but don't really add much long-term value. For example, someone else in the comments talked about the sqlite module and the http server, but now NodeJS also natively supports sqlite, and if I'm working in web dev and writing servers, I'd rather use an existing, battle-tested framework like Express or Fastify with a larger ecosystem.

It's a cool project, and I like that they're not using V8 and trying something different, but I think it's very difficult to sell a change on such incremental improvements.

▲

ifwinterco 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is a long term pattern in the JS ecosystem, same thing happened with Yarn.

It was better than npm with useful features, but then npm just added all of those features after a few years and now nobody uses it.

You can spend hours every few years migrating to the latest and greatest, or you can just stick with npm/node and you will get the same benefits eventually

	▲	sam_goody 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have been using pnpm as my daily driver for several years, and am still waiting for npm to add a symlink option. (Bun does support symlinks). In the interim, I am very glad we haven't waited. Also, we switched to Postgres early, when my friends were telling me that eventually MySQL will catch up. Which in many ways, they did, but I still appreciate that we moved. I can think of other choices we made - we try to assess the options and choose the best tool for the job, even if it is young. Sometimes it pays off in spades. Sometimes it causes double the work and five times the headache.
	▲	rererereferred 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If Node becomes much better thanks to the existence of Bun, then I think Bun accomplished its goals. Same for C and Zig.