You're right about the messaging being confusing, I've been writing everything solo, so I'm definitely open to PRs that help with the copy. To clarify: "Rust-powered" refers to the server runtime itself, not just the bundler. The actual HTTP server, RSC renderer, and routing are all written in Rust (using an embedded V8 engine to execute your React components). It's not just Rolldown doing the bundling.

On the npm integration point: what I should have said is that rari's Rust runtime handles traditional node_modules resolution (require/import from node_modules), which is actually pretty rare for Rust-based JS runtimes. Deno, for example, uses npm specifiers instead of node_modules.

Great feedback on the tagline too. "Zero to RSC in minutes" is way clearer than what we have now. The codebase is definitely ahead of the docs, I've been focused on getting the runtime solid first, but clearly need to catch the documentation up.

Thanks for taking the time to dig in and give constructive feedback. This is exactly the kind of input that helps make it better.

agree about the messaging, and i think this is actually the make or break problem for any new framework at this point. the react ecosystem has so many options that developers are numb to "another react framework" announcements.

the real pitch buried in the confusing docs is: same react code you already know, but running on a rust server instead of node. that's actually compelling because it's additive, not a rewrite. but it took reading the HN comments to understand that, which is exactly the problem.

fwiw the "zero to RSC in minutes" tagline the author mentioned below would've gotten me to click the docs immediately. most of us just want to ship something without a three day yak shave through webpack/vite/turbopack configuration.