Beware of Bun.js(gist.github.com)
gist.github.com
Beware of Bun.js
https://gist.github.com/littledivy/b9351c3ccf8ab99f7e14461db37044dc
52 comments
> apparently the author is a deno employee but did not choose to disclose such? If so then that throws any moral position they have out the window.
It seems like the author disclosed this a couple minutes after you wrote your comment.
> The sqlite complaint is not reasonable, if sqlite is being used as a demonstration of wasm performance there is nothing at all wrong with this test
Looking at that benchmark, it seems to be comparing Deno's WASM sqlite to Bun's native bun:sqlite, which I'd consider to be an unfair comparison.
It seems like the author disclosed this a couple minutes after you wrote your comment.
> The sqlite complaint is not reasonable, if sqlite is being used as a demonstration of wasm performance there is nothing at all wrong with this test
Looking at that benchmark, it seems to be comparing Deno's WASM sqlite to Bun's native bun:sqlite, which I'd consider to be an unfair comparison.
> Looking at that benchmark, it seems to be comparing Deno's WASM sqlite to Bun's native bun:sqlite, which I'd consider to be an unfair comparison.
Ah, then I have misunderstood what it's doing - that's hilariously terrible benchmarking, and if so the bun folk should feel bad.
Ah, then I have misunderstood what it's doing - that's hilariously terrible benchmarking, and if so the bun folk should feel bad.
The bun sqlite benchmark is importing 'bun:sqlite' which is a native binding, not wasm.
They do disclose that now.
The benchmark, while it seems (without knowing the function specifics) that it is overtesting (testing hash(toptr(n)) instead of just hash(m)), it is the same on both tests so it does feel like a fair comparison? Sure it could be done differently to make a more atomic comparison, but the composite comparison still feels fair if both operations tend to be performed together. Def not an "expose".
Overall though, Bun is an amazing accomplishment for many reasons and I'd love if the project focused a bit less on the supposedly benchmark/performance and more in some other things it brings to the table, like it being based on `JavaScriptCore`, being an alternative to Node but still mostly compatible, the speed of development (vs Node which we've been complaining that has stagnated for years), etc. Not saying not to mention impressive benchmarks, just that it'd be nice to highlight the other points as well!
I personally also don't like the direction Deno was taking, and def welcome Bun as a modern alternative to Node.
Overall though, Bun is an amazing accomplishment for many reasons and I'd love if the project focused a bit less on the supposedly benchmark/performance and more in some other things it brings to the table, like it being based on `JavaScriptCore`, being an alternative to Node but still mostly compatible, the speed of development (vs Node which we've been complaining that has stagnated for years), etc. Not saying not to mention impressive benchmarks, just that it'd be nice to highlight the other points as well!
I personally also don't like the direction Deno was taking, and def welcome Bun as a modern alternative to Node.
I personally also don't like the direction Deno was taking,
Yeah, the story is:
Deno: Hi, we are a new nodejs alternative without all the mistakes nodejs made.
Bun: Hi
Deno: We are going to adopt all nodejs mistakes.
Yeah, the story is:
Deno: Hi, we are a new nodejs alternative without all the mistakes nodejs made.
Bun: Hi
Deno: We are going to adopt all nodejs mistakes.
This reads as a bit salty but I’m not mired in javascript enough to evaluate the specifics. My impression is that bun is quite liked in the community. These appear to be a few minor grips.
Anyone have more in-depth understanding?
Anyone have more in-depth understanding?
The post is claiming the Deno benchmarks created by Bun.js devs to compare/market their runtimes makes nonsensical choices that are more adequately explained by a malicious intent to misrepresent Deno than oversights.
Seems to be the case IMO, but it's not 100% cut and dry. Bun.js' position could be adequately explained in every case as "the defaults/obvious choices for these benchmarks in Deno are slow", but then again they are consciously making apples to oranges comparisons which feels dishonest to me.
Seems to be the case IMO, but it's not 100% cut and dry. Bun.js' position could be adequately explained in every case as "the defaults/obvious choices for these benchmarks in Deno are slow", but then again they are consciously making apples to oranges comparisons which feels dishonest to me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There should be a disclaimer that the author works for Deno https://gist.github.com/littledivy
Mind you, despite being a possible conflict of interest this also provides credentials for likely relevant expertise, with skill and interest in correcting errors.
(Also, disclosure, not disclaimer.)
(Also, disclosure, not disclaimer.)
Or, perhaps the complete opposite, where it's someone who actually knows how to benchmark JS engines because they work for deno. But we won't know unless they explain which it is.
I think that’s a large part of what I was saying? I’m not sure how you interpreted what I said.
something to bear in mind for sure, but if what they're saying is true, then it really doesn't matter either way?
Agreed, simply having a conflict of interest isn't a reason to disregard the complaints. But the problem is that failing to disclose it up front creates the appearance of dishonesty, which undercuts the message. But it's important for us as readers because it makes us more aware that we should be looking for some of the techniques that can be more confounding or misleading.
I want to be clear, I am not saying that the post is wrong, just that we would know to be more careful in reviewing claims.
I want to be clear, I am not saying that the post is wrong, just that we would know to be more careful in reviewing claims.
[deleted]
Seems a bit of a general theme. Not long ago I saw an article claiming Bun was faster than Rust Hyper webserver, but the author forgot to turn off debug mode. Article is gone now: https://medium.com/cooking-with-bun/hello-world-performance-...
> forgot to turn off debug mode
This is almost a meme in the Rust subreddit at this point. So many times, people come, post some kind of benchmark claiming that Rust is slower than X. Then after some back-and-forth discussion/tests, we found out that the release mode wasn't used.
This is almost a meme in the Rust subreddit at this point. So many times, people come, post some kind of benchmark claiming that Rust is slower than X. Then after some back-and-forth discussion/tests, we found out that the release mode wasn't used.
Archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220927051406/https://medium.co...
(though medium seems to resist archive.org by reloading the page indefinitely)
(though medium seems to resist archive.org by reloading the page indefinitely)
Surprised not to see deno in the techempower benchmarks - that's the way to prove this Divy. https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21&l=z...
Looks like the sqlite bench complaint was fixed 5 days ago and the react-hello benchmark was fixed earlier today (before the creation time of this gist).
I don't know if the suggested FFI benchmark is fair, as the change would no longer be simulating doing many ffi_hashes on many byteArrays, instead it simulates doing many ffi_hashes on the same byteArray over and over and benefits from caching the type casting necessary by deno.
Replace the const byte array with a randomly generated list (or real bytes you'd want to hash) of many passed to the benchmark as a parameter and the benchmark and the deno one loses the advantage from the cached type cast.
I don't know if the suggested FFI benchmark is fair, as the change would no longer be simulating doing many ffi_hashes on many byteArrays, instead it simulates doing many ffi_hashes on the same byteArray over and over and benefits from caching the type casting necessary by deno.
Replace the const byte array with a randomly generated list (or real bytes you'd want to hash) of many passed to the benchmark as a parameter and the benchmark and the deno one loses the advantage from the cached type cast.
nope, this is after those updates.
You mean the fixes aren't applied? The sqlite looks like it changed to the sqlite3 version 5 days ago
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/4b5c9acc72908ba22e3f70...
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/4b5c9acc72908ba22e3f70...
the homepage links to https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/blob/e55d6eed2bf9a5db30250fdd... which is clearly using Wasm
That is pretty misleading then and they should update the homepage, I was just following the file's linked in the gist which seem to be updated.
[deleted]
I wrote a whole long-winded comment here about really having a hard time keeping my biases in check about JS, the ecosystem/devs around it etc.
Then I go to the repo and see Bun is a Zig project.
I've maybe said too much already. :|
Then I go to the repo and see Bun is a Zig project.
I've maybe said too much already. :|
The thing about Bun that turns me off is around the OS-specific system call optimizations (using different optimizations for different platforms) which means that each new feature they add to bun that uses any system calls must be done 3 times for the 3 major platforms (MacOS, Windows, Linux)
Another thing is I believe Deno supports WebGPU and Node supports WebGL via Angle etc (for e.g. running Tensorflow with GPU support)but Bun not only has no story there but its author has refused to provide any info about their intent aroundGPU support.
Another thing is I believe Deno supports WebGPU and Node supports WebGL via Angle etc (for e.g. running Tensorflow with GPU support)but Bun not only has no story there but its author has refused to provide any info about their intent aroundGPU support.
The thing about Bun that turns me off is around the OS-specific system call optimizations (using different optimizations for different platforms) which means that each new feature they add to bun that uses any system calls must be done 3 times for the 3 major platforms (MacOS, Windows, Linux)
You mean just like libuv/node, the JVM and Go?
You mean just like libuv/node, the JVM and Go?
I have nothing to do with anything in this space, but why would you not want to take advantage of the platform’s native capabilities?
it might drive some skepticism toward long term support or reliability ( everything has to be developed three times ) and unknown performance characteristics ( or even potential behavior ) across platforms.
not sure I agree with the take, but that's how I read it
not sure I agree with the take, but that's how I read it
to be clear, this isn't my take.
It's surprisingly easy to develop OS-specific code using Zig (the language Bun uses), because of its excellent integrated support for cross compilation and comptime feature. For example, with some zig code I write (a posix layer for node), I build for many platforms in parallel every time I make a change.
I've deleted the gist because it doesn't let me lock comments.
None of the issues have been fixed ofcourse. I don't think i care anymore.
None of the issues have been fixed ofcourse. I don't think i care anymore.
Very sad to read this. I thought Bun was above this type of thing and was the real deal. Do you think they were resorting to that kind of thing to pursue funding? This sucks :(
I don't think this is malice, more that frankly developers are really bad at benchmarks. Myself included.
I wouldn't say it's even that. To me it reads like they're using sane defaults for Deno that any developer would use. The fact performance can be improved by leveraging knowledge of Deno internals is irrelevant. Comparing default OOB performance is an apples-to-apples comparison.
This "exposé" seems like mud slinging from a disgruntled Deno maintainer with inherent bias to see Deno perform better. If anything, it paints a poor picture of Deno, not Bun.
This "exposé" seems like mud slinging from a disgruntled Deno maintainer with inherent bias to see Deno perform better. If anything, it paints a poor picture of Deno, not Bun.
No, I disagree. A couple of those things pointed out are fair: they’re unfair comparisons that aren’t apples to apples, which matters for benchmarks. The SQLite one for example is like me benchmarking a game on two PCs to test graphics performance, but with wildly different settings on both. It tells the end user nothing useful about the comparative performance.
All of those things are easy mistakes to make though. Where it’s a bit not great is if there was apparently communication about it and the Bun team didn’t at least change the SQLite comparison — it’s not “OOTB” behaviour, it’s a library.
All of those things are easy mistakes to make though. Where it’s a bit not great is if there was apparently communication about it and the Bun team didn’t at least change the SQLite comparison — it’s not “OOTB” behaviour, it’s a library.
That's fair. It seems both issues have now been fixed[1].
I still think the approach of reporting this by the Deno developer was unnecessarily hostile.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33199911
I still think the approach of reporting this by the Deno developer was unnecessarily hostile.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33199911
That I absolutely agree with, this could’ve been resolved a lot more maturely.
[deleted]
Creator of Bun here.
Regarding the SQLite claim:
The "view source" link for SQLite is out of date (fixing shortly), but the numbers are correct. I forgot to change the label on the landing page from "x/sqlite" to "x/sqlite3" and I forgot to update the source link.
You can see I updated in this git commit:
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/4b5c9acc72908ba22e3f70...
Here is what it shows for me, but I encourage you to run it on your own computer to see for yourself:
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/40506e33e73018103bcf08...
It threw an error until I googled "Deno pointer ffi", which mentioned this function https://doc.deno.land/deno/unstable/~/Deno.UnsafePointer and that worked. I assumed that `Deno.UnsafePointer.of` is the expected way to get a pointer to a buffer, but it seems that changing the type to "buffer" is a faster way for this case. Will update the page shortly.
Regarding the SQLite claim:
The "view source" link for SQLite is out of date (fixing shortly), but the numbers are correct. I forgot to change the label on the landing page from "x/sqlite" to "x/sqlite3" and I forgot to update the source link.
You can see I updated in this git commit:
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/4b5c9acc72908ba22e3f70...
Here is what it shows for me, but I encourage you to run it on your own computer to see for yourself:
deno run --unstable -A deno.js
cpu: Apple M1 Max
runtime: deno 1.26.1 (aarch64-apple-darwin)
benchmark time (avg) (min … max) p75 p99 p995
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
SELECT \* FROM "Order" 26.3 ms/iter (25.06 ms … 29.23 ms) 26.74 ms 29.23 ms 29.23 ms
SELECT \* FROM "Product" 53.91 µs/iter (52.17 µs … 317.75 µs) 54 µs 65.63 µs 76.75 µs
SELECT \* FROM "OrderDetail" 269.41 ms/iter (240.72 ms … 308.82 ms) 279.05 ms 308.82 ms 308.82 ms
bun bun.js
[0.26ms] ".env"
cpu: Apple M1 Max
runtime: bun 0.2.0 (arm64-darwin)
benchmark time (avg) (min … max) p75 p99 p995
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
SELECT \* FROM "Order" 14.44 ms/iter (13.71 ms … 17.82 ms) 14.56 ms 17.82 ms 17.82 ms
SELECT \* FROM "Product" 34.39 µs/iter (30.46 µs … 4.55 ms) 32.88 µs 48.5 µs 60.13 µs
SELECT \* FROM "OrderDetail" 148.17 ms/iter (144.8 ms … 154.92 ms) 149.85 ms 154.92 ms 154.92 ms
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/40506e33e73018103bcf08...
It threw an error until I googled "Deno pointer ffi", which mentioned this function https://doc.deno.land/deno/unstable/~/Deno.UnsafePointer and that worked. I assumed that `Deno.UnsafePointer.of` is the expected way to get a pointer to a buffer, but it seems that changing the type to "buffer" is a faster way for this case. Will update the page shortly.
Bun's SQLite implementation has correctness issues:
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/921
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/1056#pullrequestreview-1...
This makes SQLite transactions no longer serializable (in regard to the schema), and breaks the safety of any kind of external concurrency (e.g. mvSQLite and Litestream).
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/921
https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/1056#pullrequestreview-1...
This makes SQLite transactions no longer serializable (in regard to the schema), and breaks the safety of any kind of external concurrency (e.g. mvSQLite and Litestream).
Thank you for the comment. I'll update the gist with this.
Deno is already known for highly unprofessional behavior towards opensource communities, see https://twitter.com/deno_land/status/1562771000802279425
Unfortunately for supporters it may be the end of Deno (unless overly-aggressive core owners step out).
Unfortunately for supporters it may be the end of Deno (unless overly-aggressive core owners step out).
Does the world _really_ need another js runtime?
There's benefits to competition as well as choice, if any of the projects fail for any reason, there's another compatible alternative to use.
And now there's three: Deno, Bun and Cloudflare Workers
And now there's three: Deno, Bun and Cloudflare Workers
[edit: apparently the author is a deno employee but did not choose to disclose such? If so then that throws any moral position they have out the window. The below however is still accurate to my reading of the complaints.]
First up is the FFI test. On the one hand I think that this is a legitimate complaint, changing an existing benchmark for your comparisons is always suspect. That said I can see technically legitimate reasons for the change - for example if bun's ffi interface doesn't actually handle byte arrays as well as other runtimes. But in such a case that should be explicitly called out as a caveat.
The sqlite complaint is not reasonable, if sqlite is being used as a demonstration of wasm performance there is nothing at all wrong with this test - if anything using wasm makes it more valuable as a comparison of runtime perf, otherwise you're very quickly going to just be benchmarking one native build of sqlite to another native build of sqlite.
The React complaint - this just looks like bog standard formatted minified code, which is an absolutely reasonable thing to do - in fact I would argue it is a much better reflection of real world performance than using the non-minified code. Production websites only ever send minified content (at the react scale) and minification absolutely impacts page load performance, and historically could result in catastrophic runtime impact (though they're better at not doing this now).