[jddil]

Not rigged at all. Just a joke of a microbenchmark trying to equate a toy with an actual runtime.

Bun may be great someday, but right now it’s missing such basic functionality that any benchmark is a farce. Nobody cares that you can quickly ack a request a half million times a sec if you can’t do something as basic as spawn a child process.

[Jarred]

Spawning processes was added in Bun v0.2.0 (released three days ago). It internally uses posix_spawn. That being said, there’s definitely still a lot of work to do in Bun

[jddil]

Fair enough and you seem to be adding features fairly quick which is impressive to watch, but my point still stands.

These benchmarks don't make me think Bun is fast, they make me think Bun is cheating in something they don't need to cheat in yet.

Go heads down, finish adding features, run another benchmark when you're closer to parity and promote THAT heavily. Sure it won't be such a dramatic difference once you have to compare apples to apples but it'll be more honest.

[hinkley]

Here’s another perspective on this: someday, you’re going to find bugs that require more code to work correctly, and more code is slower. If you’ve fixated on performance you now have a conflict of interest, and conflicts make it easier to talk yourself into bad solutions.

I say this as someone who has gotten a lot of pushback in my career about performance work. Performance is a thing that needs to be priority. It doesn’t trump all else.

Make it work, make it right, make it fast. When people skip step 2 (and a godawful number of people do) they make enemies of themselves to their coworkers.

[FlorianRappl]

I fully agree. Played around with Bun quite a bit, but any benchmark is meaningless until it has all the features and stability to have it production ready. Until then it's just a promising (and very respectful) start - but nothing more.

[vips7L]

Bun isn't even cross platform.