It's "we support 4 JS backends, we don't have the capacity to support 5 currently". They're not dropping bun entirely, instead bumping the minimum bun version and not supporting "bunv2" because they don't want to be beta testers.
No, the team mislead people by claiming the rewrite was experimental only to merge 1M lines of unreviewed code merely days later. Responsible software developers don't operate on blind trust, and both the Bun code and the maintainers are highly unpredictable at this point. That's more than sufficient technical grounds to drop an optional and replaceable dependency, especially since there are no user-facing consequences beyond the bruised egos of a cult following that demands blind loyalty to its tech‑bro leaders.
It's "we support 4 JS backends, we don't have the capacity to support 5 currently". They're not dropping bun entirely, instead bumping the minimum bun version and not supporting "bunv2" because they don't want to be beta testers.
Has the team announced that they're breaking backwards compatibility, or that testing will be reduced?
No, the team mislead people by claiming the rewrite was experimental only to merge 1M lines of unreviewed code merely days later. Responsible software developers don't operate on blind trust, and both the Bun code and the maintainers are highly unpredictable at this point. That's more than sufficient technical grounds to drop an optional and replaceable dependency, especially since there are no user-facing consequences beyond the bruised egos of a cult following that demands blind loyalty to its tech‑bro leaders.
7 replies →
Proactively removing work, yes.