Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun.
Especially given the context of both of these different context: Claude Code is a gem of Anthropic, experiencing extreme growth and where any of its change can result in billing issues.
Bun is a JS runtime, and regardless of its growth, can focus on being the best runtime possible: It doesn't impact billing nor the bottom line of Anthropic, so they don't have to rush out patches due to abuse unlike CC.
It's unclear how it will pan out over the next years, still very early on the acquisition to see if anything will change, but I'm not concerned just yet.
These labs play the game of trying to kill competition in the harness game (because third party harnesses risk commoditizing the underlying LLMs once they are all good enough), while playing a game of chicken with each other how long they can burn money that way before they have to give up.
At some point they have to price their product fairly, and the only hope they have is to have killed all competition by then, which is of course a game that they seem to be loosing. Useful models are getting smaller and cheaper to run every year and it has hit a threshold at which we will see continued development of third party harnesses even without the userbase of subscription users.
Basically the prime bet that they made (that one needs extremely expensive hardware to have useful AI) has already failed. The secondary bet that they can lock users into their ecosystem (which requires them to subsidize their harness via unprofitable subscriptions burning their capital) and be able to monetize that later will also fail. They will have to compete on merit alone, and that is much less profitable.
Lots of businesses have subscription programs in which a small number of users are money losers, but which in aggregate make money.
It's not even obvious that the labs are losing a lot of money on even a minority of users; the rate use caps are fairly aggressive for Anthropic, and a cursory analysis of likely actual cost of serving tokens shows they are high margin products at the API level and unlikely to be unprofitable within the usage constraints provided to subscribers.
I do think subscription models make commercial sense because users want predictable costs, and it's a club good in which marginal token cost is zero which helps consolidate their customers' purchasing volume to one provider. But that's a different claim than them serving it unprofitably to kill competition.
Also, they (Anthropic) are transitioning many of their enterprise customers to API consumption billing anyway.
We gave up on subscriptions long ago. They're rinky dink and get you a paltry amount of utilization before they run out.
The per day per seat costs can exceed $1000. This is already normal for studios, and it's already producing positive ROI.
There's simply no way to price video any other way than by usage. I suspect the same will come for everything.
I thought the prime bet was that the winning lab who reaches takeoff through recursive self improvement will make a galactic superintelligence. Not saying I believe this but the people running the labs do. Under this scenario if you are a few months behind at the pivotal time you might as well not exist at all.
and that's under the assumption that you can create a superintelligence that will continue to slavishly serve your agenda rather than establishing and following its own goals.
We’ll all be bblbrvkxn46?/4!gfbxf’mgv5fhxtgcsgjcucz to buvtcibycuvinovrYdyvuctYcrzuvhxh gcuch7…:!
Edit: Meant to say AGI (superintelligence didn't make sense). Superintelligence is undefinable at the moment so even considering if it's possible or not is more of a philosophical thing/si-fi thought experiment than anything else.
Arguably it’s already here. ChatGPT knows more than any human who has ever lived. It can carry out millions of conversations at once. And it has better working memory (“context”) than humans. And it can speak and write code much faster than humans.
Humans still have some advantages: Specialists are smarter than chatgpt in most domains. We’re better at using imagination. We understand the physical world better. But it seems like we’re watching the gap close in real time. A few years ago chatgpt could barely program. Now you can give it complex prompts and it can write large, complex programs which mostly work. If you extrapolate forward, is there any good reason to think humans will retain a lead?
Natural selection doesn't care why something replicated a lot.
I look at superintelligence this way: software engineering used to be considered amoung the most mentally demanding jobs one can have. And in this field more and more people give up large parts of their job and become approximately product managers to let the machine do the engineering part. So we are about there. Who cares that there are some puzzles in some "synthetic" benchmark in which humans outsmart AIs?
But that's all just sci-fi worldbuilding.
What if the competitor's architecture is able to produce tokens twice as fast. What if the competitor secures a 1 month exclusivity deal on Nvidia's next generation?
The assumption would be that in the lead time it has the super intelligence at least takes a small lead and undermines any paths a later arriving super intelligence could take to interfere with it's goals, which naturally includes stopping competing SIs from becoming more powerful in a way that could undermine it.
So assuming the super intelligence has goals and work towards them it will be initially trying to solidify its own power, iterating on that small lead, assuming it's the smartest super intelligence[1], should be enough to win. The scary part is that assuming no guardrails [2] it's going to be as ruthless as possible in achieving those goals. That does not necessarily mean it will appear ruthless in achieving those goals, just as ruthless as it judges optimal.
1. Which being so smart one of it's chores would have been reinvestment in making itself smarter than competition and being smarter than its makers has a good chance of actuating those self-improvements.
2. In the internal balancing of goals sense not the don't feed the mogwai after midnight sense.
A genuine superintelligence is a very, very scary thing to have under the control of one person or organisation.
I dont think this is "understood" or "known" to anyone except Ed Zitron. Subscription plans like Claude Code also have rolling usage limits, it could be profitable. Inference is very cheap and unless you're using OpenClaw no one is actually maxing out the usage window at all times. I'm sure in aggregate the subs are not money furnaces.
I think there were reasons to doubt that heavy subscription users are unprofitable before they did that. OpenClaw was just the tip of the iceberg.
Why don't they make token pricing dynamic if that was the case? It should then allow heavy user to get even more for their money than with the current subscription model where they can't adjust to current infra availability.
It may be that "in aggregate" sub users are (not yet) a loosing business. But in all fairness, the more useful AI gets, the more it will be used. And the more it will be used, the harder it will be to make subs cheaper than token pricing. The only counter-weight are new light users, but those will also become heavy users over time, the more useful it will be for them. And at some point it will be hard to onboard light users in the first place, because the laggards will require even more intelligence and value to get them over.
"profit" is a weird concept in the software business. it might be true that there is an opportunity cost to these users, either because they displace other potential users by using up capacity, or because they would be willing to pay more if forced. but I don't believe that anyone is losing money on inference costs on any of their plans.
> At some point they have to price their product fairly
they are competing in a market. if most of their costs were inference then this would be a good thing, because everyone would have roughly the same prices, so as long as they had the best model they would win. in fact model development costs eclipse the cost of inference, and is something that non frontier labs get for much cheaper by distilling from the frontier companies.
> They will have to compete on merit alone, and that is much less profitable.
that's not really true. google won search on merit alone, and were massively successful as a result. the trick is that everyone from the poorest shmuck to the richest businessman uses google, so they win through scale. in ai, google and openai are making a bet that they can do the same thing. there's only really room for one winner at this game, even two is stretching it, so anthropic has to win by being the smartest model that only high end businesses use. that's a very risky bet.
Honestly, I don't think it's that cut and dry. Their bet is that the marginal utility of having a smarter model more than makes up for the cost of the additional high-end hardware.
And honestly, if you look at their frankly insane revenue growth since Opus 4.5 released, they were right.
>The secondary bet that they can lock users into their ecosystem (which requires them to subsidize their harness via unprofitable subscriptions burning their capital) and be able to monetize that later will also fail.
I think we're already past this point, honestly. They lowered usage limits, blocked OpenClaw then tried to remove Claude Code from the $20/mo plan. They have always had low market share for the consumer chatbot market and don't seem to care about catching up to OpenAI there.
Anthropic and Google are arguably playing that game. OpenAI's Codex CLI is open source and entirely optional for use of the GPT Codex models.
I think it is insane that people got into a situation where they had committed to a javascript runtime that had to "figure out how to monetize at some point". It is also bizarre that some people are still hopeful despite it being acquired by one of the most enormously unprofitable companies in the most enormously unprofitable sectors of our industry.
To me, the obvious comparison seems to be Docker. Their tooling revolutionized software development and made cgroups and containerization accessible to the masses. Yet they generally seem to have failed to extract payment from users, even with managed service opportunities.
It seems to me that there are substantial obstacles to monetizing a project licensed with even a weaker OSS license like MIT. I think this is especially true for projects that don’t have managed service / “open core” potential.
Any gratis project you rely on runs the risk that it will no longer be provided gratis. That alone is not a strong basis for making decisions.
Maybe we should stop trying to build so many billion dollar/year businesses and work on more sustainable models.
The ones that were first to market went all bankrupt, or were acquired by others that came later into the scene.
2. "But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
Why? What's the risk? It's open source. Also, speaking of open source, we are happy to commit to open source projects that have no monetization, nor any plans to ever monetize.
It's not great that the search for profit will usually corrupt projects, but the other most common option is that the projects don't exist at all. It's very rare (or it used to be before this year) that someone can do something like this on their own with no compensation. So now at least Bun exists.
All valid points though, I'm pessimistic about Anthropic still actively diverting resources to these side quests when tough times hit (which might be in a week for all we know).
There are way too many ways companies arrange to pay themselves and never be profitable to avoid taxes.
Tldr; I think the don't care about what will happen to the company in medium or long term.
---
Are any of those companies looking for stability or sustainability?
I have the impression they are completely aware of the diminished return effects and they will explore the moment to the fullest of their capabilities promising even more absurd things when the results are even smaller.
I do agree there is a considerable improvement comparing from a year ago but definitely not ground shaking as it was from the year before to the last.
Many of the promises turns out to be empty or at least having huge number of asterisks to it.
I think there are flags everywhere. From minor things such as everyone using different benchmarks or plotting performance differences on weird choices os axis and ordering.
Other mild things such as promoting the "system" created a compiler from scratch when such compiler does not even do a hello world and runs and gave output binaries running 300x then the counterparts.
(I am aware there was a misusage of the agentic benchmark to build a compiler but there was an active choice on how to tell the story. Given other movements I am not quite sure if I believe it was an accident)
There are other red flags such as people rolling back to previous versions of models because they can't get the new one to work properly.
Other situations such as the affirmations that they have such "dangerous" model that apparently seems to be more of a benchmark trick than real results with <100B models being able to replicate the benchmark results only by changing the methodology.
I don't think we are yet in the turning point where everything will collapse but my feeling is that we are going in that direction unless something that makes these models much more intelligent AND efficient.
It makes sense to not hire a person when you can have a machine for the same job for the same price. But AI prices are getting higher than the returns do the margins for it to be a sensible choice are getting smaller.
That all said, I say again that I think that they are completely aware of this effect. Not because they understand the technology but because this happens more frequently than not. Because of this, I don't think they care to be sustainable. All of them,smell that they will take the money and leave the ship to sink.
Some teams have a push now to go all in on AI; don't even look at the code. I've seen this in action and the results are probably what you'd expect. Works great at some level, but as complexity accumulates (especially across a team with different "technical vocabularies"), the end result is compounding complexity and mistakes and no person or team knows how the software actually works.
No human testing of software or QA; unit + integration + give AI control over the browser/tool. Yes, this how some teams are moving forward now. So some of this may be that Anthropic's culture will end up causing shifts in how the Bun team operates and thinks.
If this type of culture and mindset becomes the norm, I think either the models have to get a lot better or the software quality is going to decline.
Matt Pocock has a great talk here: https://youtu.be/v4F1gFy-hqg
"Code is not cheap. Bad code is the most expensive it's ever been. Because if you have a codebase that's hard to change, you're not able to take advantage of all of the bounty that AI can offer. Because AI in a good codebase actually does really, really well."
To be fair to Matt Pocock, I know he worked for Vercel and Stately for a while before doing content full time. I can't say anything about his AI content, but I did some of his free lessons when I was learning TypeScript. They included interactive editor lessons and such, so it wasn't just empty videos and fluff like some of the influencers.
99% of the times that's not learning, but productivity porn.
I consider this a hard rule, like ad-blocking (this is exactly that, blocking ads as each talk is an ad (or ad in disguise).
Anthropic acquired Bun for their own benefit, to protect and grow their investment in Claude Code. Not for the benefit the JavaScript community at large. Sounds obvious but I guess that has to be pointed out. Outcomes will follow incentives in the long run.
A good example is React. Facebook's interest is that React be performant (website performance is correlated with time spent on said website), reliable (also correlated to time spent), quick to build on (features ship faster) and popular (helps new recruits hit the ground running). That's fairly well aligned with what developers outside of Facebook want too.
Sure, since Facebook's server is written in Hack it means we'll never get a truly full-stack React, and instead we'll need third parties for the back-end (Next.js, Tanstack Start, etc). But Facebook building react also means it will always be someone's job to make sure this Framework works well in codebases with millions of modules.
This is all independent of any shitty practices with their other software. And this has been for decades at this point.
Doesn't that just make it even worse? If Anthropic can't even afford to spend the engineering effort on making sure their core product functions properly, why should we assume that they'll be investing serious resource into what is essentially some upper manager's loss-leader pet project?
If Anthropic is financially hurting, why shouldn't they put Bun on the bare minimum of life support?
Building developers sell you the apartment, not the elevator room, the electrical room, mechanical room, etc. They will make all sorts of controversial decisions with the apartments; odd layouts, ugly flooring, weird pricing, tacky finishes, etc. The "core product" is the money-maker, that's where the egos clash, priorities change, and where they try to charge as much as possible while they cut costs as much they can.
No one is buying the electrical room though. It just has to work. Yes, you'll make it as cheaply as possible; no flooring, no paint on the walls, no interior designer meetings to argue what's the right tone beige for the walls. But it'll do what it needs to do. It'll keep the lights on. Otherwise you can't sell any of the apartments.
Same thing with Facebook; there's active incentive to introduce all sorts of dark patterns over their app, to ignore certain bugs, to unnecessarily change things, etc. But none of those incentives are present with React. The incentive is to keep React reliable and performant, and to keep the team lean. I'm sure it's similar with Bun in Anthropic.
And to be clear, Anthropic definitely spends most of it's engineering effort making sure their core product "functions properly". This "functions properly" is just different for us as clients vs them as a corporation. There is high overlap, since they need to keep us clients happy. But a well-functioning product at a company is one that leads to money. I'm sure very capable engineers pushing the okrs they care about.
I’m unclear about this. What’s the business case? I use Gemini CLI a lot, which runs on Node, and I can’t see anything that would be improved by using a different JS runtime. It’s not something you notice as a user. Node is mature, stable, and perfectly fit for the purpose.
If Anthropic were public and if these decisions were comprehensible to the average investor, an acquisition like this ought to cause the stock to plummet. Luckily for the people involved, there are no constraints like that in the current market.
I don't have any direct context, though I have run an open-source business (Zulip) for the last decade wearing both the CEO and technical lead hats.
But my simulation is that the Bun leadership team might well be spending 2x as much of their time working on the technology than they reasonably could have as an independent venture-funded company, just because they don't have to do all that other stuff anymore. (There's of course probably a significant bias in that focus towards whatever Anthropic needs from Bun, only some of which other users may care about).
So I agree. Personally, I would not be concerned unless you see the tell-tale signs of the team being reassigned to other priorities at the buyer, which tends to be obvious, because, say, the GitHub project activity falls off a cliff.
One favorable way to phrase it for Anthropic is they acquired Bun because CC and other internal tooling depended on it so heavily and they questioned it's future as purely OSS.
It remains to be seen how things will actually unfold.
However, these engineers, too, now start to vibe-code with reckless abandon https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2048434628248359284 and https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2049780223311548729
For me it's far from a stretch, in fact it matches closely a pattern that I've seen repeated many times over at this point.
Can you point to any examples of a company with shitty practices buying one without shitty practices that didn't end up with the shitty practices diffusing through the newly-acquired company within a couple of years?
If you start seeing the people that created bun leaving Anthropic, then I'd probably start to worry. And I haven't seen any sign of that yet.
Regardless of what else is going on, kernel is a separate team, and has very strong incentives to remain competent and sane.
They released more major features and breaking changes in their last patch release than most software sees in two major versions.
I've been using it just as a script runner and npm package manager basically, and it's incredible the amount of work you have to do to find "good" versions. We've had patch versions suddenly freeze on install more than once, we couldn't upgrade for quite a while due to this. I think they broke postinstall scripts with trustedDependencies entirely two minor versions ago - not a mention in release notes, and somehow no one reporting it in GH issues. In 1.1 or so you could get Bun to do trustedDependency builds in postinstall, and then after that you couldn't. I looked around for release notes and saw nothing mentioned. It's been broken for months.
Here are some things shipping in the next version of Bun:
- 17 MB smaller Windows x64 binaries [0]
- 8 MB smaller Linux binaries [1]
- `--no-orphans` CLI flag to recursively kill any lingering processes spawned [3]
- SSL context caching for client TCP & unix sockets, which significantly reduces memory usage for database clients like Mongoose/MongoDB [4]
- Experimental HTTP/3 & HTTP/2 client in fetch [5]
- Experimental HTTP/3 support in Bun.serve() [6]
- Bun.Image, a builtin image processing library [7]
(Along with several reliability improvements to node:fs, Worker, BroadcastChannel, and MessagePort)
The Anthropic acquisition also means Bun no longer needs to become a revenue-generating business. We are very incentivized to make Bun better because Claude Code depends on it, and so many software engineers depend on Claude Code to help get their work done.
[0]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30219
[1]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30098
[2]: https://github.com/oven-sh/WebKit/pull/211
[3]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/29930
[4]: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/29932
Perhaps Bun will be the exception, but you can't say that the concern is unfounded.
The CEO of Anthropic has a habit of making outlandish predictions about how AI is so very close to replacing human programmers. Anthropic has been applying this belief to Claude Code and it has become a giant heap of unmaintainable spaghetti.
Has development velocity increased because you are merging large quantities of unreviewed LLM generated code? If so, I would be very worried about future stability if I used Bun.
I’ve been a Bun maximalist since the beginning. Thank you Jarred!!!
EDIT: Actually I just remembered I delivered a small ERP tool to a business a while back and I did opt to use I think Bun for that because it had the most robust tools to wrap a project into an `*.exe`, that was definitely a better experience than Node. Though since that was dependency-less JS I did the whole thing using Node and then just shipped it with Bun.
There are still things I dislike about Deno, but it really does make package development a lot simpler. JSR is a great upgrade from NPM, and Deno makes it so simple to publish to both NPM and JSR. Strict IO permission system and WebGPU support are also nice to have.
> wrap a project into an `*.exe`
Deno makes this simple too. Though that's where it's bundling features stop. Honestly I am okay with that, I'd rather use Rolldown or Vite for web or library bundling.
Bun has a really nice REPL, can recommend https://bun.com/docs/runtime/repl
They even added sql template string queries like recent popular libraries in v24.
I just built a project using it.
- Querying sqlite with tagged template literals
- Bun.password.verify being argon2 is a better default
- HTML imports
- JSX transpilation
- Auto loading .env file
https://burlyburr.com, which hits https://backend.burlyburr.com
https://nodejs.org/api/sqlite.html#databasecreatetagstoremax...
Why do people want this? Shipping constantly is how software breaks. You want tools that are good and stable, not constantly churning. I wish software developers would wake up to the idea that velocity is not a marker of quality.
For example, i'd been following this issue https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/14102 and eventually all the libraries shipped "if bun do x" into them, which is the opposite of compatibility.
We live in a vastly different world than before, where people are more conscious of ethical concerns and willing to stand on their ground to avoid repeating past mistakes.
It might be premature from a tech standard, but it makes sense from an ethical concern. I don't think misconduct is as easily backtracked as it was before and preemptive measures are needed to avoid the large impact that those decisions make.
Would be interested to hear what makes you say that. I don't see anyone being conscious of ethical concerns more than they were before. I can see slightly more BDS people, for example, but outside of that not much.
Other than a bundler, Node already has all of these. Different test runner syntax maybe but otherwise TS "just works" out of the box and their built in test runner is totally capable. Not sure I see the need for such a lament over Bun.
Additionally, Bun's push for covering as much of the Node API as possible has pushed Deno towards the same level of compatibility, and now most code is basically runtime agnostic. I'm not sure if I'll ever actually use Bun in production, but I'm glad it exists because the JavaScript ecosystem has been much improved simply due to its existence.
Now that we have `satisfies` and `as const`, there's really no reason to ever use an enum. In my opinion, TypeScript is best when it is simply used as Language Server, and it should never have had runtime implications in the first place.
`node --experimental-transform-types example.ts`
As for whether this matches your definition of "native support" or not...
Is there anything else that doesn't run as valid JS if you strip the types (and maybe some other extra keywords)out?
Genuine question, in my head there's not much, but TS has a few weird corners I maybe haven't used
I'm using it in my projects with no issues.
IIRC they "almost" recommend against using them (the last part, I haven't researched again now).
But the usage of many features has reached a sort of point of no return, so I hope Node will go the route of making the experimental transpilation the default for TS files at some point.
Goes to show how strong the appeal of syntax is, especially enums.
To people coming from languages with enum support, it just looks so much more organized to use them, compared to union types, despite all of the (many) drawbacks.
For their first year two of existence, bun tried to do npm, but better. For the first year or two of their existence, Deno tried to reinvent npm.
The key result is that after that first year or two Deno had to walk back their decisions, to create a Node-ecosystem-compatible tool .. and as a result, they're now significantly behind bun (at least by all metrics I've seen).
I have limited time, and the little feedback that guy provided turned out to be perfectly well answered by AI. So sorry, but either you actually criticize something actionable to just shut up, but I don't have the time to debate this if the simple few lines don't get answered.
If you would like more insight, just say the word.
So the more direct question would be: How has Bun actually been since the acquisition?
From what I can tell they have been responding to users as fast as before, and improving the product as well as before.
That said, I'm worried about them having good enough monetization while keeping features open... or at least able to be replicated by others. So I can understand some of the concerns.
The main issue is side effects of effort/thinking it seems. It hallucinates at a much higher rate and skips research in a ton of edge cases even with effort of MAX and disabling adaptive thinking, even on 4.6. Ive said before, but using opus today feels like using sonnet from ~October timeframe. Its not anywhere near what opus 4.5 in January felt like, or even opus 4.6 on release (notably 4.6 on release _really_ over-researched even simple tasks and that behavior is almost entirely gone now even with max effort so they are definitely re-tuning these things on the fly and degrading the experience as a result).
EDIT: I also have a very high suspicion that the way they hydrate thinking is buggy and/or lossy (or maybe unintentionally lossy which leads to bugs). So many behaviors just make no sense at the level I have my setup tuned (I have everything set to "just charge me the most money to hopefully get the best results") and the fact that I havent changed anything while using it daily for months and months on end, but have been getting worse and worse results.
I used to be able to give it certain commands, and reliably count on it to do the right thing. Lately I give it identical commands and it just starts doing something idiotic, instead of the correct thing (that it did 50 times prior).
To an earlier poster's point, it's probably the model, not the harness, and I understand Anthropic has to make money someday (and they're not now) ... but I'd rather see a visible doubling of price than a secret halving of the capabilities (which seems to be their current plan).
That approach is enshitification.
More changes like this came and they were not or very hard to configure. I understand the business idea behind it. Make them to use AI as much as possible, get the human out of the loop. More training data. More Token Usage JUHUU.
However I think that made Claude Code so much worse and so much more untrusthworthy. It’s a sneaky attempt to take away the driving wheel from you. And if you follow that logic, way more and way more things seem reasonable.
But mainly for now it just generated a lot of distrust for me
I tried using bun for a project earlier this year and learned that you can't use testcontainers(works fine w/ Deno).
They are not a runtime, but they do seem to be interested in wrapping a lot of tools with simple top-level commands
Always appreciated nuance.
The author seems more focused on the thing where Anthropic fights OpenClaw usage unless you have the right billing set up for that. Frankly I just don't care about those complaints, all the LLM services want you to set up a non-subsidized billing method to use OpenClaw because it uses lots of tokens. It doesn't mean they're going to crap on Bun.
The only reason I don't use Bun is I never ran into a situation where Node didn't cut it. Even though my least favorite tech corp controls Node.
Only company that would survive the AI race - the one where the current wave was actually invented along with the research paper, the libraries and even specialised hardware: Google.
Google has a serious problem with its product management culture (long list of products and projects, people even skeptical of Flutter) otherwise they would have surpassed Anthropic long ago.
It's fine for other purposes though. Which are arguably a much larger and lucrative market.
For my projects I don’t even need any additional dependencies. I use vanilla dom and sqlite
I only use Cursor through the CLI, and while the UX of the CLI is pretty bad, I've found their harness (the prompts they use and orchestration of LLMs) to be nothing short of incredible. I can't comment on their agent development environment given I haven't spent a lot of time with it.
The reason I'm moving away from Cursor is cost. Unfortunately, if you want to use the SOTA models from both OpenAI and Anthropic you basically have to go direct through their subsidized plans.
Admittedly, with Opus 4.6+, GPT 5.5 I just haven't used them much and as I gain more experience I can see what the hype is all about. But to me, the answer isn't $200 max plan, it's bifurcating the work. Call me a spendthrift!
Otherwise if you are looking for and IDE first approach with great AI integration it's the best product out there. I prefer it over CC/Codex.
The key question is how much unique tooling you're relying on. If you can switch to Node tomorrow, great. If you can't, make sure you have a contingency plan.
If not VC funding, then what? Volunteer work? So other people can make money off it?
Our industry has no answer how to fund infrastructure.
You've got FAANG companies using open source projects built by volunteers and doing meagre grants every once in a while, not nearly enough to pay a SWE salary. A smattering of hard to get grants from NLnet, etc. And then places like Anthropic or Grok or OpenAI "buying" open source teams to pull them inside, which inevitably leads to drama.
I don't know what the answer is, but there's a serious issue here. Similar situations in the 80s were why the FSF was founded and the GPL established. (Not to fund, but to protect the rights of authors and users)
Might as well just open our pants and wave our wangers, hoping for a better world
You see this all over the place with other programming languages.
The ones that have bleeding edge features do so, because there are companies, or universities (for their PhD and Msc thesis), that invest into those ecosystems.
In the end nodejs will keep improving, with Microsoft and Google's baking, and that will be it.
Personally my experience with Bun has been 100% positive so far.
I'm aware full Node support is not there yet and may never happen but with dependencies that support Bun it's been a smooth ride for me.
Technically, no, not textbook enshittification. Enshittification was originally meant to refer to companies squeezing two-sided markets, not products just getting kinda worse.
I sympathize with the general premise. The reaction to move away seems pre-mature though.
It sounds like `bun` is still performing just as well as before, and this sentiment isn't based on concrete changes. I also wouldn't expect infrastructure like `bun` to evolve in the way a consumer-facing product, especially one scaling as quickly as Claude Code, can.
Plus it’s not a huge lift right now
If Bun stays great, you saved yourself some time for switching, and got to keep using Bun.
If Bun worsens, you spend the same time for switching, just moved a bit later, and got to use Bun for a little longer.
I've never used Claude Code, but this person doesn't understand what "textbook enshittification" means. "Enshittification" is a feature of certain kinds of business models, progressing through the following stages:
1. Giving away a product free to users, subsidized by venture capital, to gain a monopoly
2. Switching to advertising, then abusing users on behalf of the real customers, advertisers
3. Using monopoly power to abuse real customers (advertisers) to extract as much money as possible
Anthropic's business model doesn't have a "user / customer" dichotomy; their paid users are their customers. And they don't have a monopoly they can use to extract money yet.
ETA: In other words, "Enshittification" isn't just random; you're making the user experience worse in order to make advertiser experience better; and then making advertiser experience worse in order to extract maximum profit. The only complaint that could vaguely be related to profit is the OpenClaw stuff, and that's entirely due to trying to keep the "all-you-can-eat" model for non-OpenClaw users, rather than having to switch everything to metered.
Their product focus, roadmap, or execution is likely a rounding error in the face of that tsunami.
Frankly, it’s shocking they’re doing so well relative to, say, GitHub.
Switching to Go or Rust would only make sense if performance were the main priority, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Their current setup lets them ship quickly. A rewrite in Go would likely slow that down.
Codex moved to Rust, and you can see the trade-off. Performance improved, but release velocity dropped. They’re also still catching up to Claude Code, so they don’t face the same pressure to ship as fast.
The bun people likely have some fucked up incestial business relationship with some >dev manager at Anthropic and the same pattern is repeating. Only this cycle it's going straight to acquisitions, which honestly seems like a worse strategy and Anthropic will def can the bun engineers in less than <3 years or whenever they face an actual budget crunch that they can't stave off with more gulf money.
"The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. – Rob Pike"
bun run is <1s for my projects, while watching for file changes. So the iteration speed is quite pleasant.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, etc.
Node.js is also more stable, and it has started supporting TypeScript out of the box. I don’t think Bun will have many advantages after Node 26.
Node only does type stripping though. If you want proper TS support you still need a compiler.
> I don’t think Bun will have many advantages after Node 26
There are tons of advantages. For instance, Bun includes a lot of features that would need a third party dependency in Node: db driver, S3 client, watch mode, bundler, JSX support, etc.
- Is the project important to me or can I replace it? If the latter, I'm more likely to allow failures of other criteria. If not, I need to be more strict. Bun is easy enough to replace if something were to happen to the project. Easy come, easy go.
- Are there any red flags in financing that could become problematic? Many VC funded OSS companies fail this test for me. What happens when they don't make it? What happens post IPO if they do? What happens when they get acquihired? Mostly that's up to share holders, not developers. Most VC funded companies actually don't make it and that's normal in the VC world. A few companies make it, everything else fails quickly. And there are a few examples of projects that have changed licenses under pressure of shareholders. That's why this is a red flag to me. I've used Redis and Elasticsearch, for example. And I switched away from Mongo before they changed the license. I used Terraform before they open sourced. All negative examples here.
Bun initially wasn't great on this. But the Anthropic acquisition has improved things a bit. It's still a risk. But it's unlikely they have any plans for Bun other than just keeping it alive by employing the main people working on it. Anthropic itself might still fail of course.
- Has the project been around for a long time. If so, it likely has a stable community and funding. There are no guarantees but the older the better. Bun is pretty newish still.
- Is the project stable and under active development? If it's stable because nobody makes changes anymore that's usually not a great sign. If it is stable despite a lot of active development, that's really positive. It means somebody competent is in charge. Bun seems pretty good on that front.
- Is the project otherwise structured right to be future proof. For me future proof is a combination of contributor community, commercial activity, and licensing. The more diverse the contributor community the better. If there are multiple companies sponsoring and making money of a project, that makes it less likely that a single one can hijack it for their own good. This is more common with permissively licensed software (but there are exceptions). Bun doesn't have much commercial activity around it and the regular contributor community is tiny. One person seems to be doing most of the work with only a handful of notable other contributors that are probably all Anthropic employed at this point. Out of these, the dependence on a single person looks the most problematic to me.
So, the overall score for bun is not perfect (there a few potential red flags) but I'm happy to risk using it because it's not that critical to me and easily replaceable.
My read of the whole Anthropic acquihire is that it is an improvement over the starting point which was a VC funded company that was probably going to fail otherwise. Otherwise, good tech and generally nice to use. I could see Anthropic going bad and this project surviving in one form or another. So, that doesn't have to be a show stopper.
That being said I’ve been worried about the future of Bun anyway. Especially if the AI bubble pops. Then again, it’s open source.
:(
If as claimed everyone and his malnourished cellar rat can whip up a SaaS on a whim, then why that SaaS should be built upon chromium+js+http instead of tcp+native ui?
Remember, choice of ui is no longer a constraint. Nothing is a constraint or so they say.
So it follows that all this javascript stuff can at last die.
It's annoying, but I don't see this as a bad thing at all for Bun.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2026/04/13/anthropic-revenue-growth-ai
I still use bun, but I think that there are some other pathways so I am not that worried about myself personally. But that's also because I most often than not code in golang rather than typescript/javascript
[0]: https://aube.en.dev/
The funniest part to me is that 10–15 years ago, companies were stuck in the development process due to binary (closed) dependencies. Now they're jumping into the same trap under a different name.
Maybe I’ve missed some scandals, but so far OpenJS Foundation is the best thing that has happened for the JavaScript ecosystem.
Otherwise it's just FUD.
> Claude Code appears to be enshittifying. So now I have to worry that Bun could enshittify too