Heh, I was using emdashes and tricolons long before LLMs appropriated the style but I did let the agent handle some of the details on this. Honestly, it really is just easier sometimes... Especially for blogs posts like this when I've also got a book I'm writing, code to maintain etc. Use tools available to make life easier.
Keep in mind that it's not just a matter of comparing the JS engine. The runtime that is built around the engine can have a far greater impact on performance than the choice of v8 vs. JSC vs. anything else. In many microbenchmarks, Bun routinely outperforms Node.js and Deno in most tasks by a wide margin.
With Bun's existing OSS license and contribution model, all contributors retain their copyright and Bun retains the license to use those contributions. An acquisition of this kind cannot change the terms under which prior contributions were made without explicit agreement from all contributors. If Bun did switch to a CLA in the future, just like with any OSS project, that would only impact future contributions made after that CLA went into effect and it depends entirely on the terms established in that hypothetical CLA.
There are a number of semver-major changes included in v7. That said, the goal for this release has been improved stability and performance over new features so the jump from v6 to v7 is fairly small.
To be clear, v4.2 is the stable dependable target that most users should be using as their target. Developers that want to track new development and new features and have more flexibility can move up to v5. Next year at around this time, v6 will become the new stable target. The actual number of breaking changes between v4 and v6 are likely to be quite small -- things that work in v4 should continue to work in v6 and beyond really. So the best advice I can give is: if you are developing modules for developers to use in their applications, you'll want to primarily target v4 for now but keep an eye on where v5 is going and use that as your beta channel for new development going forward.
For Node.js core APIs, there is a deprecation strategy that requires at least one major version cycle before anything can be removed, and even then the chances of things actually being removed are slim. We're trying to take a very cautious and conservative approach to breaking changes in core. Generally, if it works in v4, it should continue to work in v5, if it doesn't, that's a bug that should be reported and fixed.
Changes in npm, on the other hand are a different story. Technically, npm is not part of Node core, it's a utility that we bundle with the core but it has it's own lifecycle, it's own process and it's own separate project. The "contract" between npm and node.js is still being worked out and this kind of feedback is extremely useful.
To be certain, whether or not LINK is supported is not really the issue. The file is mishandling HTTP methods in general for the sake of "optimization". Had the parser been written correctly in the first place, it ought to have been trivial for someone to add support for new extension methods like LINK, but since the parser is broken, it becomes significantly more difficult.