deno

There's a fork-in-progress called "Dodo," the Discord server is quickly filling up. https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/37030#issuecomment-6... Dodo aims to be a drop-in replacement. Then there's Ende, my fork, and I ripped out Node compatibility, Deploy, KV, Jupyter, &c. https://ende.sh

QuickJS works fine for yt-dlp and is way smaller: less than 1 MB vs 34 MB + its many dependencies for Deno. See https://github.com/denoland/deno/discussions/9811

They actually have partial unstable TypeScript 7 support already. Internal documentation of how it works: https://github.com/denoland/deno/blob/main/cli/tsc/README.md...

> Seems like the core of these issues was a Claude-coauthored PR: https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/33208 Disclaimer: I'm the author of the linked PR. Using AI here is not really at fault here - it was just a giant rewrite that replaced how we do `node:http` in Deno. Replacing the engine while driving is never easy and we did the best we could. While we have a lot of test coverage and we use tests directly from Node.js codebase, we just don't catch everything. We're constantly working on improving the situation and I'm sorry you hit a problem. I can assure you that we are fixing all Node compat bugs as quickly as possible.

To be honest, Deno was cool in the past (I even somewhat promoted it on HN in some comments), but nowadays I'm disappointed in their lackluster approach to stability and testing (specifically in Node compat). I recently hit multiple Node compatibility regressions in Deno that were hard to debug, and it doesn't help that they use Claude for everything now, from actual fixes to writing blog posts (even this one). For example, those two issues recently directly affected my projects: - https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/34297 - https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/35289 Seems like the core of these issues was a Claude-coauthored PR: https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/33208 I think I'll probably just go back to normal Node because it's stable and won't break things like this between minor releases, plus it's not full-on vibe-develop

from what i understand after a quick look at the source is it uses a C ABI to communicate between the WebView/CEF "host" application and the deno runtime which is loaded by the host as a shared library. marshalling of values back and forth between the JS/C++/Rust layers still has to happen but these are just straight C api calls in process under the hood so much less overhead than having to do serdes across a socket/pipe. - https://github.com/denoland/deno/blob/main/cli/rt_desktop/li... - https://github.com/littledivy/laufey/blob/main/webview/src/m...

Thanks for feedback, I opened a PR to implement linking functionality that seems more familiar to npm's strategy: https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/34359

By the time I read this, the blog post doesn't exist yet: > The release post for v2.8 is not yet published. > Check GitHub releases page for the latest release status of Deno. The release is here: https://github.com/denoland/deno/releases/tag/v2.8.0 EDIT: Formatting

You misspelled segfault as segfaut on your Deno search: https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state... There 10 open and 40 closed on Deno.

I remember looking into the nodejs alternatives some years ago, one way to compare them is to look at the open issues. bun had so many hits for 'segfault' and deno has basically none. Even now: bun (zig) [1] 119 open / 885 closed deno (rust) [2] 0 open / 1 closed I don't think this has that much to do with Zig's anti-AI stance. More about using the right tool for the job. [1] https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3... [2] https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state...

As compared with 41 for deno https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%22Se... With the total number of issues being 16,458 for bun and 14,259 for deno.

Not that it's a particularly accurate stat, but: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3... 119 open, 885 closed https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state... 10 open, 46 closed

The article is measuring full project build performance. That includes type-checking and compilation. Maybe the `tsc` type-checker was already fast (so we only get some speed improvements in `tsgo`), or the `tsc` compiler was not that fast (so we get a lot of speed improvements in `tsgo`)? *Update:* There was a performance regression in incremental type-checking between `tsgo` preview 20251209 and 20251211 [1]. But `deno` is using `tsgo` 0.1.11 which was already released last week (before this regression). So, does not seem to influence the type-checking times here. [1] https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/issues/2341 [2] https://github.com/denoland/deno/blob/v2.6.0/cli/tsc/go/tsgo...

Yeah it does look like things have moved on, but there were echoes from previous Go conversations around the idea of a standardised package and the attendant years of hurt that it turned me off a little while ago. I did try: https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/4574#issuecomment-62...