I agree, but this difference is very frustratingly omitted from the hype-sphere surrounding the rewrite, even though most software developers don't work on a runtime with well-defined interfaces and behavior. I know a number of people who've developed severe FOMO that their projects take longer than 2 weeks and maybe it's because they're not AI native enough.

(I don't mean to be critical of the Bun maintainers, who have always been open about the fact that they leveraged the specific context of their project to do this effectively.)

I regularly use bun, it's a decisive speed improvement over node. Large parts of the ecosystem build on bun.

If you install bun you're still getting the zig version.

I don't see major reasons to doubt the rust rework, especially as so much capital and token investment is being thrown at it.

As long as it fits better than alternatives, I see no major reasons to change.

> They chose to use a react rendering to native TUI renderer, which was a source of a lot of performance issues.

The source of the performance issue here is their own incompetence, actually. I have never in my entire career heard of a rendering pipeline as idiotic as the custom one they built.

>AFAIK, they have written a new renderer.

Which is equally terrible and has earned them every single rendering engineer in the world taking the piss out of them when they proudly announced it was as complicated as rendering a video game.

> They chose to use a react rendering to native TUI renderer, which was a source of a lot of performance issues.

That's such a stupid engineering choice that it really makes one question if the people working at Anthropic have any software engineering ability at all. There's no excuse for running React in a freaking TUI.

Do these hacks make bun less secure than other runtimes? I find it a little hard to believe you can get much more robust and performant than V8 or SpiderMonkey without cutting some corners that notably went uncut by either for all these years.