Deno 2.9.5 added an experimental QuickJS backend for deno compile and deno desktop.

This sub has just become an endless advertisements of vibecoded apps at this point with very little discussion around Node.js, servers, programming and the general community conversation around Node.js apps.

Attached are a few screenshots but honestly this list is endless that we can scroll infinitely as far as eye can see.

I have been on this sub for almost 8+ years and have never seen anything like this before. Just 2 years ago most posts were "non advertisments" and actual community interactions about Node.js, javascript, typescript and servers. People helping each other out and strong community support. Now it is just an endless list of vibecoded advertisment apps and I doubt things will improve from this point. Miss the old time and I am not sure whether Node devs are even coming to this sub for quality discussions

So this tech youtuber Theo t3 who created the video "GPT 5.6 is here but we can't use it", spent several videos talking and lying about how he and his team cannot use the OpenAI's latest model and portrayed as if he is also the victim of US government's unfair ban just like all of us. This gets views.

Then once Gpt 5.6 was released he created the video "So I've been using gpt-5.6 for awhile..." where he says he always had access to Gpt 5.6 sol behind the scenes because he is one of the "trusted" partners of OpenAI and then proceeded to give his review of the model which he has been using for months at that point even though it was just released.

Another tech youtuber Matthew Berman did exactly the same with this video where he says "Only a select group of companies get to use it right now. And the rest of us, we wait." and then made a video on the Gpt 5.6 launch date where he said he has been tunning gpt 5.6 sol for a while

Why can't these youtubers just be honest and say they are trusted partner of OpenAI and have early access to the latest frontier models but cannot talk about it until it is released.

These youtubers have inside connections to OpenAI and Anthropic and have a youtube channels for influence. So, why use such clickbait titles and blatantly lie and then on the launch day finally reveal they have always had early access.

Opus 5 launched and it is exactly the same reaction online on youtube as every previous release of models. You cannot go through youtube tech videos without noticing these desperate clickbait titles with EVERY model release. One simply cannot find a normal, grounded and practical videos (made by real engineers who still work as Software Dev and know what they are taking about), without being "exaggerated" beyond the limit. Are tech youtubers this desperate for views because they don't have real software development jobs and are fulltime youtubers?

Also, these guys do check reddit as a topic for their "next" videos

The difference between how Anthropic (and how American AI companies) does business vs how Chinese Kimmi K3 (Moonshot AI) does the same couldn't be more stark.

Anthropic (and American AI companies) would NEVER say "don't give us money, we don't have the capacity to serve you". Anthropic will ALWAYS take the full money but won't give the full capacity and will nerf the model (like they did again with fable 5, Opus 4.6, 4.7, 4.8).

Kimmi K3 on the other hand honestly stopped accepting users money when they reached the tipping point in terms of users/traffic and apparently don't want that SaaS money which Anthropic would never give up. I Have NEVER seen "sold out" or "join waitlist" for a SaaS product but I truly respect this honesty a lot more. Plus it is opensource .... worlds apart from American approach

Maybe it is time to ditch paying money to dishonest American AI companies who take money but often don't give the full model capacity.

Overall it is still rated 4.1 stars on glassdoor but that doesn't tell the full picture

I like to occassionally check glassdoor reviews of companies we all depend on to see how they work, how their employees feel and at what cost we all get the models.

Eventhough Anthropic has 4.3 stars rating on glassdoor, some of the recent negative reviews are insightful to read.

Full article: https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust

Bun is owned by Anthropic. Jarred used Claude Fable 5 (pre-release) to fully rewrite Bun from Zig to Rust single handedly in 11 days and Claude Code v2.1.181 (released June 17th) and later use the Rust port of Bun already.

Crazy that LLMs are making a lot of things possible which otherwise wouldn't see light of the day due to massive efforts involved.

TL'DR highlights from the article.

Bun is 535,496 lines of Zig. A rewrite to Rust by hand would've taken 3 engineers with full context on the codebase about a year, during which time we wouldn't be able to improve Node.js compatibility, fix bugs, fix security issues or implement new features. We never would've done that. The realistic alternative was to do nothing and keep fixing the bugs at the top of this post forever.

Before writing any code, I spent about 3 hours talking to Claude about how to map patterns from our Zig codebase closely to Rust. Claude serialized this discussion into a PORTING.md, which ended up on Hacker News.

I rewrote Bun in Rust using about 50 dynamic workflows in Claude Code run continuously over the course of 11 days. I used a pre-release version of Claude Fable 5, a Mythos-class model. Claude Code's dynamic workflows kept 64 Claudes running for 11 days (I would've had to write my own harness to pull this off otherwise).

For most of those 11 days (and after), I monitored workflows - manually reading the outputs to check for issues and bugs, and prompting Claude to edit the loop to fix things.

How do you review a PR with +1 million lines added? How do you start to build the confidence needed to responsibly merge large quantities of LLM-authored code?

Answer

Adversarial review asks Claude (in a separate context window) to exhaustively come up with reasons why the changes create bugs or do not work.

Split context windows

Usually with humans, the person reviewing the code is not the person who authored the code. The person writing the code wants to merge the code, which can bias their actions to ship before it's ready.

Claude is the same way. The Claude that wrote the code wants the code to get accepted. The Claude that reviews wants to find issues in the code.

1 implementer, 2 or more adversarial reviewers per implementer. The reviewer's only job: find bugs & reasons why the code does not work. The implementer doesn't review. The reviewer doesn't implement.

Outcome

Bun v1.3.14 was the last version of Bun written in Zig. Bun v1.4.0 will be the first version of Bun written in Rust. It's available in canary now

So far, Bun v1.4.0 fixes 128 bugs that reproduce in v1.3.14. These range from memory leaks to crashes to miscolored help text.

Reduced memory usage. We fixed every instrumentable memory leak

In Bun v1.3.14, every build leaks about 3 MB, forever — tools like dev servers that bundle on every request eventually run out of memory. In Bun v1.4.0, memory levels off

Combined with the Rust rewrite, ICU changes, and identical code folding, Bun's binary size shrinks by ~20% on Linux & Windows.

Bun v1.4 makes Bun faster, smaller, use less memory and gives the team incredibly powerful tools for systematically improving stability going forward

Claude Code v2.1.181 (released June 17th) and later use the Rust port of Bun. Startup got 10% faster on Linux but otherwise, barely anyone noticed. Boring is good.

Conclusion

This Rust rewrite would've taken a team of engineers with full-context on the codebase a year of work. With 1 engineer using Fable & closely monitoring Claude Code, we went from start to 100% of the test suite passing on all platforms in 11 days. This is the bleeding edge of what's possible today.

One engineer can do a lot more today than a year ago.