| ▲ | pjmlp 4 hours ago |
| Agreed, the language would be interesting during the 1990's, nowadays not so much. The tools that the language offers to handle use after free is hardly any different from using Purify, Insure++ back in 2000. |
|
| ▲ | defen 4 hours ago | parent [-] |
| I find comments like this fascinating, because you're implicitly evaluating a counterfactual where Bun was built with Rust (or some other "interesting" language). Maybe Bun would be better if it were built in Rust. But maybe it would have been slower (either at runtime or development speed) and not gotten far enough along to be acquired by one of the hottest companies in the world. There's no way to know. Why did Anthropic choose Bun instead of Deno, if Deno is written in a better language? |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because maybe they reached out to them, and they didn't took the money, while Bun folks business model wasn't working out? Who knows? Besides, how are they going to get back the money spent on the acquisition? Many times the answer to acquisitions has nothing to do with technology. | | |
| ▲ | defen 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Claude Code, FactoryAI, OpenCode, and others are all built with Bun. Anthropic chose to use Bun to build their tooling. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We can think of they making bun an internal tool, push roadmap items that fit their internal products, whatever, which doesn't answer the getting back money of the acquisition. Profit in those products has to justify having now their own compiler team for a JavaScript runtime. |
|
| |
| ▲ | n42 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't engage with this guy, he shows up in every one of these threads to pattern match back to his heyday without considering any of the nuance of what is actually different this time. | | |
|
