3 ms·

This is awesome but in case anyone was wondering: the author was previously using Webpack rather than a newer generation tool. So the speed benefits outlined he

This is awesome but in case anyone was wondering: the author was previously using Webpack rather than a newer generation tool. So the speed benefits outlined here would likely be the same if they were still using Node with esbuild instead. Overall I like Bun - diversity in JS ecosystems is a great thing - but I’m struggling to come up with reasons to actually use it (which is fine! As long as the author is enjoying the work, why not?)

paulddraper 3y ago
You can see at the beginning of the article a benchmark comparison with Webpack and esbuild.
brundolf 3y ago
They weren't using SWC? They describe deploying to Vercel, and Next.js has had stable built-in support for SWC for a good while now
- byhemechi 3y ago
  iirc next.js only uses swc for the dev mode bundler edit: this is no longer the case, ignore me :)
- re-thc 3y ago
  Webpack is the bundler. SWC as used in Next.js doesn't do the bundling part.
  - icemelt8 3y ago
    I also didn't understand this, if they were using NextJS, why do they have a custom webpack config? My assumption is that there is a separate web app that does the drawing and coloring, they bundle it into a script.js and include it in their nextJS page.
    - shaneos 3y ago
      Yes, this is correct. All the canvas stuff has nothing to do with React, so I bundle it all separately. In fact, I don't even load React on the browser, I just render the initial page with it on the server then just work with the DOM from there on out. It greatly reduces the amount of JS shipped to the client, and since 90% of my code was going to be Canvas related, it's not much overhead to add a few click listeners for various DOM nodes
  - brundolf 3y ago
    Ah true, my bad. Though it's still relevant to mention, because usually when people hear "using Webpack" they also assume "using Babel". Bun is doing both the bundling and the transpiling, so it should be compared to the bundler + transpiler combination
taosx 3y ago
I use it a lot for small cli apps and during dev, it's so nice to be able to run typescript files with bun instead of tsx or ts-node.
- white_dragon88 3y ago
  [dead]
- sroussey 3y ago
  Yes, I love bun for running typescript cli apps. 40x80 or some such is hardwired as the screen size though, and without raw mode, things like terminal window “controls” are broken.
  - Jarred 3y ago
    Yeah we need to fix raw mode
000ooo000 3y ago
>I’m struggling to come up with reasons to actually use it (which is fine! As long as the author is enjoying the work, why not?) I wish more people, or at least more HN commenters, had this attitude. Don't have to look hard to find negativity in response to folks getting out there and having a go. How many passion projects went nowhere* but taught authors valuable shit that lead to incredible engineering and projects? Besides, I love writing software and anyone who says I shouldn't because it isn't going to be better than the status quo can beat it. *not implying Bun is going nowhere. Be gone, pedants.
- tawal 3y ago
  You're right ! I think many software engineers shits on project may be based on their experiences and forgets that these projects can driven in future awesome creations

paulddraper 3y ago

You can see at the beginning of the article a benchmark comparison with Webpack and esbuild.

brundolf 3y ago

They weren't using SWC? They describe deploying to Vercel, and Next.js has had stable built-in support for SWC for a good while now

byhemechi 3y ago
iirc next.js only uses swc for the dev mode bundler edit: this is no longer the case, ignore me :)
re-thc 3y ago
Webpack is the bundler. SWC as used in Next.js doesn't do the bundling part.
- icemelt8 3y ago
  I also didn't understand this, if they were using NextJS, why do they have a custom webpack config? My assumption is that there is a separate web app that does the drawing and coloring, they bundle it into a script.js and include it in their nextJS page.
  - shaneos 3y ago
    Yes, this is correct. All the canvas stuff has nothing to do with React, so I bundle it all separately. In fact, I don't even load React on the browser, I just render the initial page with it on the server then just work with the DOM from there on out. It greatly reduces the amount of JS shipped to the client, and since 90% of my code was going to be Canvas related, it's not much overhead to add a few click listeners for various DOM nodes
- brundolf 3y ago
  Ah true, my bad. Though it's still relevant to mention, because usually when people hear "using Webpack" they also assume "using Babel". Bun is doing both the bundling and the transpiling, so it should be compared to the bundler + transpiler combination

taosx 3y ago

I use it a lot for small cli apps and during dev, it's so nice to be able to run typescript files with bun instead of tsx or ts-node.

white_dragon88 3y ago
[dead]
sroussey 3y ago
Yes, I love bun for running typescript cli apps. 40x80 or some such is hardwired as the screen size though, and without raw mode, things like terminal window “controls” are broken.
- Jarred 3y ago
  Yeah we need to fix raw mode

000ooo000 3y ago

>I’m struggling to come up with reasons to actually use it (which is fine! As long as the author is enjoying the work, why not?) I wish more people, or at least more HN commenters, had this attitude. Don't have to look hard to find negativity in response to folks getting out there and having a go. How many passion projects went nowhere* but taught authors valuable shit that lead to incredible engineering and projects? Besides, I love writing software and anyone who says I shouldn't because it isn't going to be better than the status quo can beat it. *not implying Bun is going nowhere. Be gone, pedants.

tawal 3y ago
You're right ! I think many software engineers shits on project may be based on their experiences and forgets that these projects can driven in future awesome creations