This is cool! But AFAIK bun promises to be a one-stop-shop for all your JS/TS dev needs, while Perry is "just" a compiler from Typescript to native executables.

I would mention deno as the main competitor

I would too ... but not as the winning competitor.

For their first year two of existence, bun tried to do npm, but better. For the first year or two of their existence, Deno tried to reinvent npm.

The key result is that after that first year or two Deno had to walk back their decisions, to create a Node-ecosystem-compatible tool .. and as a result, they're now significantly behind bun (at least by all metrics I've seen).

I know, early deno was rough and frustrating. But it is now _the_ main competitor to Bun. What makes you say it is behind? Are you talking about features or usage?

Freedom from the NPM mess was why I started my project from the ground up in Deno in the first place.

I would mention Node as the main competitor. It isn't moving as vast as the VC-backed ecosystems are but its future is a lot more assured.

Ok, but Node is the status quo. As replacement to the node runtime bun and deno are the two contenders at the moment

Personally I much prefer Deno as it's also doing a lot more work to unify the backend and frontend JS APIs.

Yes, same for me. I was skeptical at first but things have really improved over the past 2 years

Looks like AI slop

https://github.com/PerryTS/perry/issues/139

> Good question, and you're basically right — let me show the smoking gun.

:vomit:

Is there any Typescript that is compiled wrongly? If so, go ahead and show me.

the AI replies itt are cringe

Seriously. It's one thing to use AI to write code but spamming machine generated garbage when talking to another person is just rude.

I see the thread and the patience of the other guy to continue talking to the AI, it's impressive

I'm the "AI cringe guy" if you want to call it that. Yet I am still waiting for someone to produce typescript that compiles wrongly.

I have limited time, and the little feedback that guy provided turned out to be perfectly well answered by AI. So sorry, but either you actually criticize something actionable to just shut up, but I don't have the time to debate this if the simple few lines don't get answered.

Absolutely correct. It's not just smart to use AI in this way, it's efficient. And here's the thing most people don't get, you are saving time.

If you would like more insight, just say the word.

Are they wrong though? AI or not, compiling code is math - not philosophy. So what's wrong here?