|
| ▲ | krashidov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm still confused. Why not just pour a ton of resources into it since it's open source. I guess dev mindshare? It is a great product |
| |
| ▲ | simonw 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pouring a ton of resources into an open source project that raised $26m in VC doesn't guarantee that the project will stick around. Acquiring it does. | | |
| ▲ | krashidov 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Buying Bun to ensure it sticks around doesn't pass the smell test unless they had very few months of runway left | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're describing Node.js which has existed for the last 15 years |
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And is owned by Microsoft. The theory is that by symmetry Anthropic should own a node competitor. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | altmanaltman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| but they are a company that burns billions every year in losses and this seems like a pretty random acquisition. Bun is the product that depends on providing that good, stable, cross-platform JS runtime and they were already doing a good job. Why would Anthropic's acquisition of them make them better at what they were already doing? |
| |
| ▲ | simonw 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why would Anthropic's acquisition of them make them better at what they were already doing? Because now the Bun team don't have to redirect their resources to implementing a sustainable business model. | |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >but they are a company that burns billions every year in losses No they don't. |
|
|
| ▲ | pzo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ok but node is even more stable and mature - compare node api parity in bun and also issue of bun vs node |
| |
|
| ▲ | sneak 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That doesn’t require or benefit from acquiring Bun. Node continues to exist and serve fine. |
