This was the point the author lost credibility, IMO:

> This restriction is philosophical rather than technical. I get it though. TypeScript is a Microsoft product. Opening that floodgate would pollute the entire ecosystem. Nobody wants more Microsoft.

I've done a small amount of work with Node (with JavaScript), and many libraries appear to have TypeScript bindings. It "felt" like there was pressure on me to move to TypeScript. (And, my conclusion at the end of my work with Node was that the next time I do anything significant with it, I would start with TypeScript first.)

I think Bun is still all the rage in some areas. For us the fact that it makes it easy to work with compliance, means it's often what we pick in place of Node when we work with typescript. Being able to build an API without using anything but the Bun runtime, the Microsoft Azure and our own internal Node packages makes the NIS2 compliance much less of a burden than if we'd work with Node.

That being said. I don't think anyone in my team considers us a "Bun" team in regards to Typescript, all our internal packages are Node packages as an example.

I don't personally have an opinion on it being owned by Anthropic. It was part of our risk assessment, but it obviously passed.