> For extensions, the choice was either TypeScript (and get this bloat) or go with Lua and a much smaller binary (but less popular language).
Incredible, the technical choice got overridden by popularity, leading straight to bloat
I see extension language choice as a user-facing UX decision, and convenience is a leading concern.
I'd argue using lua is is more convenient than typescript
What ever suits you, you didn't mind shipping a 400mb executable after all, so what do i know
Great! Just wondering maybe Bun (different JS engine) could do the job for plugins.
Anthropic Bun? :) I didn't realize it was an engine as well. I can take a look but we should wait and see where the acquisition takes it
"Bun is a new JavaScript runtime built from scratch to serve the modern JavaScript ecosystem. It has three major design goals:
Speed. Bun starts fast and runs fast. It extends JavaScriptCore, the performance-minded JS engine built for Safari. Fast start times mean fast apps and fast APIs.
Elegant APIs. Bun provides a minimal set of highly-optimized APIs for performing common tasks, like starting an HTTP server and writing files.
Cohesive DX. Bun is a complete toolkit for building JavaScript apps, including a package manager, test runner, and bundler.
- From the homepage[1] - it's a shame they use semantic html but no anchors for direct linking.
I think they're referring to bundling Bun into another program to use Bun as a JS runtime: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/12017
"Bun itself is MIT-licensed.
JavaScriptCore
Bun statically links JavaScriptCore (and WebKit) which is LGPL-2 licensed. WebCore files from WebKit are also licensed under LGPL2."
License compatible, probably safe from a rug pull?
For extensions, the choice was either TypeScript (and get this bloat) or go with Lua and a much smaller binary (but less popular language).
But - I just realized stripping it brings it down to 76MB so I guess that's ok! Will push a commit :)