These are legitimate concerns. Looking at the history of bun and its current homepage the main point is that it offers a dramatic speed improvement (plus misc. quality of life stuff).
At this point the ball is in your (and everyone else's) court to put these claims to the test. It should not be terribly hard to see if the speedup is worth your while or not, JS surely doesn't lack bloated projects that you can try to build. My own personal blog is a bloated Gatsby mess that takes half a minute to build.
That's the one true part of the experience that nobody can falsify.
> Replace npm run with bun run and save 160ms on every run
Maybe you can’t falsify this, but it’s a question of risk vs reward.
It’s currently at 0.1 release. Chances are it has a much higher chance of breaking. And when that happens, it would likely take occupy way more time to debug than the hundreds of ms saved.
Also by being new, it means it has not had a chance to cover all the cases yet. That’s the devil. It’s fast now, but it’s an apples to orange comparison until Bun is at a stable release.
Yes, making up your own mind with first-hand experience requires investing time and effort, that's why people like to have other people tell them what to think.
At this point the ball is in your (and everyone else's) court to put these claims to the test. It should not be terribly hard to see if the speedup is worth your while or not, JS surely doesn't lack bloated projects that you can try to build. My own personal blog is a bloated Gatsby mess that takes half a minute to build.
That's the one true part of the experience that nobody can falsify.