Search
Bun: the modern all-in-one tool for developers.
Bun: the modern all-in-one tool for developers.

Bun vs npm, pnpm, and Yarn and why PHP devs should pay attention

by

When you think about JavaScript tooling, it usually feels like something distant from PHP development. After all, PHP has its own package manager (Composer), its own frameworks (Laravel, Symfony, Drupal), and its own build and deployment workflows. And yet, almost every modern PHP project eventually bumps into the JavaScript ecosystem. It might be for asset bundling with Webpack or Vite, for managing React or Vue components, or simply for running a build script that compiles CSS and JavaScript.

This is where many PHP developers experience frustration. To do something as simple as compiling assets, they are asked to install Node.js, npm, Yarn, or pnpm, and suddenly their project directory fills with gigantic node_modules folders, dozens of JSON configuration files, and build commands that take longer than the actual development work. What should be a minor utility often feels like adopting an entirely new ecosystem.

For years, developers tolerated this because there were no alternatives. npm was bundled with Node.js, Yarn came later as a faster option, and pnpm refined installation efficiency. But all of them shared the same DNA: they were package managers on top of Node.js, and Node.js was the unavoidable dependency.

Now a new tool has emerged that challenges this pattern. Bun is not just another package manager, it is a runtime, package manager, bundler, test runner, and toolkit, written from scratch in the Zig programming language and optimized for performance. Instead of stacking tool on top of tool, Bun offers a single binary that replaces much of the bloated JavaScript toolchain.

For a PHP developer, this is more than a curiosity. It represents a chance to reduce complexity, speed up builds, and avoid heavy dependencies when working with JavaScript. In practice, Bun can feel closer to Composer: one tool that “just works,” instead of a stack of interdependent utilities. To understand why this matters, we first need to revisit how we got here, how npm, Yarn, and pnpm became the dominant tools, and why they all ended up perpetuating the same problems.

How we got here

The story of package managers in the JavaScript ecosystem is tied closely to the rise of Node.js itself. When Node.js was introduced in 2009, it opened a new world: JavaScript could now run outside the browser, on servers, in build pipelines, and in command-line tools. To make this practical, Node.js shipped with its own package manager: npm.

npm was revolutionary at the time. It allowed developers to share and consume JavaScript modules easily, building on a centralized registry. The ecosystem exploded, libraries for everything from HTTP servers to CSS parsers were published daily. But npm also brought with it a new kind of complexity. Packages depended on other packages, which depended on even more packages, and soon every project came with a node_modules directory containing thousands of files.

By the mid-2010s, npm had become notorious for slow installs, duplicated dependencies, and fragile workflows. Developers often joked that “npm stands for node package misery,” as projects ballooned in size and build steps became unmanageable. This led to the creation of alternatives:

  • Yarn (2016) emerged from Facebook as a response to npm’s performance and reliability issues. It introduced faster installs, a lockfile for deterministic builds, and a flatter dependency tree. Yarn was seen as a major improvement, especially for large-scale projects.

  • pnpm (2017) went further by solving npm’s biggest problem: duplication. Instead of copying every dependency into every project, pnpm created a global content-addressable store and linked dependencies via hard links. This drastically reduced disk usage and improved speed.

Each of these tools made progress, but the underlying architecture remained the same: they were package managers that required Node.js. They still spawned processes, managed node_modules, and relied on a runtime designed in the late 2000s. Improvements were incremental, not transformative.

For PHP developers, this meant that even if Yarn or pnpm improved speed slightly, the experience remained cumbersome. Running a Laravel project with React or Vue often meant installing Node.js, then npm or Yarn, then configuring Webpack or Vite, then adding TypeScript or Babel, then adding Jest for testing, an endless stack of tools piled on top of each other. Every update risked breaking something. Every build step added minutes to development.

This is the ecosystem into which Bun was introduced. Its creators asked a different question: what if we stopped layering tools on Node.js and instead built a new runtime and package manager from scratch? Instead of solving npm’s inefficiencies with clever workarounds, what if we rewrote the foundation to be fast, lean, and modern from day one?

That fundamental rethinking is what sets Bun apart, and why, even for PHP developers who only use JavaScript as a secondary tool, it is worth paying attention.

Bun’s core difference

The most important thing to understand about Bun is that it is not simply “another npm” or a faster clone of pnpm. Bun is a runtime and a package manager combined. This distinction may sound subtle, but in practice it changes everything about how developers interact with JavaScript.

A runtime, not just a manager

npm, Yarn, and pnpm are only package managers. They depend on Node.js to execute code. Every time you run a script like npm run build, what actually happens is:

  1. npm spawns a Node.js process,
  2. that process loads your bundler (Webpack, esbuild, Rollup),
  3. and then finally executes the build script.

Each layer adds overhead. If you need TypeScript, you install ts-node. If you need testing, you add Jest or Vitest. If you need environment variables, you install dotenv. Every functionality requires another package, another config file, and more execution time.

Bun removes these layers by being the runtime itself. The Bun binary is written in Zig, a low-level language designed for performance. Because Bun is both the runtime and the package manager, there’s no need to spawn external processes or load extra tools. You install, run, bundle, and test, all within the same engine.

Practical example: installation

Let’s compare installing dependencies in a typical React project.

With npm:

npm install

This runs a Node.js script that manages your node_modules, writing thousands of files to disk.

With Bun:

bun install

This leverages Bun’s global cache, parallel file I/O, and system-level calls to install packages dramatically faster. In benchmarks, Bun can finish in seconds what npm needs minutes for. The critical point: there’s no external Node.js script running here, it’s handled natively by Bun.

Practical example: running TypeScript

With npm, you often need ts-node or a build step:

npx ts-node src/index.ts

This requires compiling TypeScript before running.

With Bun, the runtime includes a TypeScript transpiler:

bun run src/index.ts

No external compiler, no extra dependency, just run it directly.

Practical example: testing

With npm or Yarn, you’d install Jest or Vitest, configure it, and then run:

npm run test

This spawns Node.js, loads the testing framework, and executes tests.

With Bun:

bun test

Testing is built in. Bun uses all CPU cores by default to run tests in parallel, with zero configuration.

Why this matters for PHP developers

If you’re working on a Laravel or Symfony project, your relationship with JavaScript is usually instrumental, not central. You just want to:

  • Install a frontend library,
  • Compile your assets,
  • Maybe run some unit tests for a Vue or React component.

Traditionally, that meant installing Node.js, npm, a bundler, a TypeScript compiler, a testing framework, and more, each with its own updates and quirks. With Bun, all of this is collapsed into one tool. It feels closer to Composer: you install one binary, and it covers the full spectrum of needs without auxiliary plugins.

In other words, Bun’s core difference is that it doesn’t just speed up what npm already does, it redefines the model. It’s a runtime, a package manager, a bundler, and a test runner in one place. For developers outside the Node.js bubble, this means JavaScript tooling can finally feel less like adopting an entire ecosystem and more like using a single, efficient utility.

Speed in practice

When Bun is discussed, one word comes up more than any other: speed. It’s not a marketing gimmick, Bun’s performance advantage is measurable, often in orders of magnitude compared to npm, Yarn, or even pnpm. To understand why this matters, especially for PHP developers, we need to look at how those gains translate into everyday workflows.

Installation benchmarks

Installing dependencies is the most common operation in any JavaScript project. With npm, a fresh install of a medium-sized project (React + Tailwind + TypeScript + Vite) can take between 40–90 seconds, depending on network and disk speed. pnpm improves this with hard links and global caching, but still usually sits in the 10–30 second range.

Bun, by contrast, regularly performs the same installation in 1–3 seconds. Independent benchmarks have confirmed Bun’s claim of being 20–100x faster than npm in large projects. The reason lies in Bun’s design:

  • Written in Zig → closer to the metal, fewer abstractions than Node.js.
  • Optimized system calls for file I/O across platforms.
  • Aggressive parallelism, downloading and writing dependencies simultaneously.
  • Global module cache, avoiding redundant downloads across projects.

For PHP developers, the takeaway is simple: those endless minutes staring at npm install scrolling text are replaced with near-instant installs.

Running scripts and builds

Another bottleneck comes from running scripts like compilers or bundlers. Let’s take an example from a Laravel project using Vite.

With npm:

npm run dev

This spawns a Node.js process, loads Vite, then invokes esbuild or Rollup to compile assets. The startup overhead alone can take several seconds before any file is even processed.

With Bun:

bun run dev

The runtime itself executes the script. There is no external Node.js process; no intermediary layers. This makes startup times nearly instantaneous. In practice, what felt like a sluggish “warm-up” phase with npm becomes instant feedback with Bun.

TypeScript compilation

For projects mixing PHP backends with TypeScript-heavy frontends, the pain of waiting on TypeScript compilation is real. With npm, you need tsc or ts-node. Both add noticeable latency, especially in watch mode.

With Bun, TypeScript transpilation is built in. You can run:

bun run app.ts

and it executes immediately, with no precompilation step and no extra devDependency. For projects where TypeScript is only used in the frontend layer, this removes an entire class of tooling headaches.

Testing performance

Consider unit testing a Vue component library in a Symfony project. With npm, you’d set up Jest or Vitest, install configuration files, and run:

npm run test

Jest loads, spawns worker threads, and executes tests, often slowly.

With Bun:

bun test

The test runner is built in, runs in parallel across all CPU cores by default, and requires no external configuration. Early adopters have reported 10–20x faster test suites compared to Jest.

Case study: Laravel + Vite asset build

Let’s imagine a common setup: a Laravel app with Vite managing frontend assets. Typical workflow:

With npm

npm install
npm run dev
  • Installation: ~60 seconds.
  • First build: ~15 seconds before you see the dev server running.

With Bun

bun install
bun run dev
  • Installation: 2 seconds.
  • First build: 2–3 seconds.

Multiply these differences by dozens of runs during a sprint, and you save hours. In CI/CD pipelines, where npm install is often cached but still slow, Bun can reduce job runtimes significantly, cutting costs in hosted environments.

The psychological effect

There’s also a less quantifiable but very real effect: developer patience. Waiting 60 seconds for npm to install packages creates friction. Waiting 2 seconds with Bun changes how often you’re willing to experiment, restart, or clear caches. Development feels lighter, faster, and less frustrating.

Why speed matters beyond JavaScript projects

For PHP developers, frontend tooling is often a necessary evil, a supporting actor, not the main star. The faster it gets out of your way, the better. Bun ensures that JavaScript tasks don’t steal focus from PHP work. In practice, it turns JavaScript tooling from a bottleneck into a utility.

The all-in-one toolkit

One of the biggest problems in the JavaScript ecosystem is toolchain sprawl. To do even simple things, you often need to stack multiple tools together, each with its own configuration, updates, and quirks. For developers coming from PHP, where Composer neatly covers dependency management without dozens of side tools, the situation feels overwhelming.

Bun’s philosophy is different. Instead of being one more piece in the puzzle, it absorbs the puzzle. The runtime, package manager, bundler, test runner, and TypeScript transpiler are all part of one binary.

Let’s look at what this means in practice.

# Example 1: environment variables

In Node.js, loading environment variables typically requires a package like dotenv:

With npm:

npm install dotenv

Then in your code:

require('dotenv').config();
console.log(process.env.DB_HOST);

With Bun, no installation needed. .env loading is built in:

console.log(process.env.DB_HOST);

Less code, fewer dependencies, no additional setup.

# Example 2: TypeScript

A common frustration for PHP developers adding a sprinkle of TypeScript in a Laravel or Symfony project is that it requires extra tooling (tsc, ts-node) and config files.

With npm:

npm install --save-dev typescript ts-node

Then:

npx ts-node src/index.ts

With Bun, TypeScript is supported natively:

bun run src/index.ts

No ts-node. No tsconfig.json unless you want one. It just works.

# Example 3: testing

If you’ve ever set up Jest, you know the drill: install dependencies, add config files, tweak them until the runner accepts your setup.

With npm (Jest):

npm install --save-dev jest @types/jest ts-jest

package.json:

"scripts": {
  "test": "jest"
}

Run:

npm run test

With Bun:

bun test

That’s it. Bun includes a test runner modeled after Jest, but with parallel execution across CPU cores by default.

# Example 4: bundling and JSX

PHP developers integrating React often rely on Webpack, Rollup, or Vite. That means dozens of devDependencies and config files.

With npm + Webpack:

npm install webpack webpack-cli babel-loader @babel/core @babel/preset-react

webpack.config.js must be created. Then run:

npx webpack

With Bun:

bun run index.jsx

JSX and TSX are supported natively. No Babel, no Webpack, no configuration needed.

# Example 5: script runner

npm provides a script runner (npm run), but it’s limited to what Node.js can execute. If you want to run TypeScript or JSX, you need to add more tools.

With npm:

"scripts": {
  "dev": "vite",
  "test": "jest",
  "build": "webpack"
}

With Bun:

"scripts": {
  "dev": "bun run dev",
  "test": "bun test",
  "build": "bun build index.tsx"
}

Each Bun command works out of the box, with no extra dependencies.

The bigger picture

For PHP developers, the beauty of Bun is not just speed, it’s removing clutter. In many projects, devDependencies grow to hundreds of packages, even if you only need a bundler and a test runner. Bun collapses that stack into one tool, so you don’t need Jest, ts-node, dotenv, Webpack, or Babel.

This matters in environments where JavaScript is not the main language. If your app is primarily PHP, you don’t want your frontend build step to drag in 200 MB of dependencies and half a dozen fragile configs. Bun reduces that surface area dramatically.

It’s not hyperbole to say that Bun feels more like Composer: one utility that handles everything without endless plugins. For developers who see JavaScript tooling as a side quest rather than the main adventure, this simplification is transformative.

Compatibility and migration

One of Bun’s biggest selling points is that it isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel at the expense of compatibility. Unlike Deno, which deliberately broke away from Node.js conventions (opting for URL imports and a different standard library), Bun was designed to work with the existing Node.js ecosystem. That means you don’t have to throw away your existing tools and packages, in many cases, you can just swap npm for bun and keep going.

But how seamless is the transition in practice? Let’s explore.

Package.json support

Bun supports the familiar package.json format, lifecycle scripts, and even node_modules. That means you don’t need to rewrite configuration files. For most projects, switching from npm to Bun can be as simple as replacing:

Before:

npm install
npm run dev
npm run test

After:

bun install
bun run dev
bun test

The commands feel almost identical, which lowers the barrier to adoption.

Node.js APIs and globals

Bun implements many of the common Node.js APIs directly:

  • process, Buffer, __dirname → fully supported.
  • require() and ES modules (import) → supported.
  • Most filesystem, HTTP, and child process APIs → supported.

For packages that rely on these fundamentals, Bun “just works.”

Where compatibility breaks

That said, Bun is not a perfect clone. There are some gotchas PHP developers (and anyone adopting Bun) should be aware of:

  1. Native modules – Packages with native C++ bindings (node-gyp) may not work yet, since Bun does not replicate Node.js’s compilation toolchain fully.

    • Example: some cryptographic or image-processing libraries.
    • Workaround: use Bun’s built-in APIs or stick to pure JS alternatives.

  2. Very obscure Node.js APIs – Bun covers the most commonly used ones, but if your project depends on edge-case APIs (like certain debugging internals), you may hit incompatibilities.

  3. Plugins and ecosystem gaps – npm and Yarn have mature plugin systems. Bun doesn’t (yet). For complex enterprise workflows that rely on plugins, Bun may not be a drop-in.

  4. CI/CD environments – Most cloud CI images (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, CircleCI) come with Node.js/npm preinstalled. Bun usually requires adding an extra installation step, such as:

    - name: Install Bun
  run: curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash

    This is simple, but it’s still one more step to configure.

Step-by-step migration example

Imagine you have a Laravel project with Vite and React. Typical setup:

With npm:

npm install
npm run dev

package.json:

"scripts": {
  "dev": "vite",
  "build": "vite build",
  "test": "jest"
}

To migrate to Bun:

  1. Install Bun

    curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash

  2. Replace npm commands with Bun equivalents:

    bun install
bun run dev
bun test

  3. Remove redundant devDependencies like jest, ts-node, or dotenv, Bun already covers them.

  4. Run your project. In many cases, it just works. If a package fails (e.g. one with native C++ bindings), check Bun’s compatibility docs or replace the dependency.

Result: faster installs, fewer devDependencies, and simpler scripts.

Migration pain points

For small-to-medium projects, migration is often painless. For enterprise-scale projects, caution is advised:

  • If your CI/CD pipeline depends heavily on npm caching, switching may break optimizations.
  • If your dependencies rely on native bindings, Bun may not fully support them yet.
  • If your team has complex workflows built on Yarn plugins, those won’t transfer directly.

In those cases, Bun can still be used locally by developers for speed, while production builds continue with npm or pnpm until Bun matures further.

Why this matters for PHP developers

PHP developers often don’t live in the Node.js ecosystem every day. For them, JavaScript is a sidekick: important, but not central. This means they usually don’t care about npm plugins, ecosystem politics, or obscure Node.js internals. They just want:

  • install to be fast.
  • dev to start instantly.
  • tests and builds to work with minimal setup.

In this sense, Bun’s compatibility approach is perfect. It works out of the box for the majority of cases that PHP developers care about, while its limitations mostly affect edge-case Node.js workflows that PHP developers rarely touch.

The PHP developer perspective

For many PHP developers, JavaScript tooling is a supporting actor: you need it to compile assets, bundle a React/Vue component, or run a few unit tests. The goal isn’t to become a Node.js expert; it’s to ship assets fast, reliably, and with minimal moving parts. This is where Bun changes the day-to-day experience.

1) Laravel + Vite: from npm sprawl to one binary

Before (npm/pnpm):

npm install
npm run dev      # vite dev server
npm run build    # vite build

package.json (typical):

{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "vite",
    "build": "vite build",
    "test": "jest",
    "tsc": "tsc -p tsconfig.json"
  },
  "devDependencies": {
    "vite": "^5",
    "typescript": "^5",
    "jest": "^29",
    "ts-node": "^10",
    "dotenv": "^16"
  }
}

You pull in Jest, ts-node, dotenv… even if you barely use them.

After (Bun):

bun install
bun run dev      # vite dev server
bun run build    # vite build
bun test         # Bun's built-in runner

package.json (leaner):

{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "vite",
    "build": "vite build",
    "test": "bun test"
  },
  "devDependencies": {
    "vite": "^5",
    "typescript": "^5"
  }
}
  • No dotenv: Bun loads .env automatically.
  • No ts-node: Bun runs TS natively.
  • No Jest: bun test covers unit tests (JS/TS) with parallelism by default.

Handy tip: anywhere you’d do npx, you can often do:

bunx <cli> [...]

(bunx mirrors npx behavior with Bun’s speed.)

2) Symfony + Webpack Encore → Vite (or keeping Encore)

If you’re still on Webpack Encore:

Keep Encore, gain speed:

bun install
bun run encore dev
bun run encore production

Add an npm-script alias so Bun can call it:

{
  "scripts": {
    "encore": "encore"
  }
}

Everything else stays the same, installs just get dramatically faster.

Or migrate to Vite (popular in Symfony now):

  • Replace Encore config with vite.config.ts.
  • Use @symfony/stimulus-bridge or native Stimulus with Vite if you rely on Stimulus.
  • Update Twig templates to point to Vite’s dev server (Hot Module Replacement) and built assets.

Either way, Bun doesn’t force the tool; it makes install/run faster and removes transpilery clutter.

3) TypeScript and JSX/TSX with zero boilerplate

With npm you’d need ts-node or a separate tsc step. With Bun:

bun run resources/ts/app.ts
bun run resources/js/main.jsx

It transpiles on the fly. You only add tsconfig.json if you want strict control over options and emit.

4) Testing front-end pieces in PHP projects

If you have a Vue/React component library and a few unit tests:

Before (Jest):

npm i -D jest @types/jest ts-jest
npm run test

After (Bun):

bun test

Minimal test example (Button.test.tsx):

import { describe, it, expect } from "bun:test";
import { Button } from "./Button";

describe("Button", () => {
  it("renders label", () => {
    const label = "Click me";
    // pseudo render assertion (adapt to your renderer)
    expect(typeof Button).toBe("function");
    expect(label).toBe("Click me");
  });
});

If you need a real renderer, pull in your favorite light renderer or testing lib; Bun will still execute faster.

5) Composer integration: unified DX

You can wire Bun into Composer scripts so PHP devs never touch JS commands:

composer.json

{
  "scripts": {
    "assets:install": "bun install",
    "assets:dev": "bun run dev",
    "assets:build": "bun run build",
    "assets:test": "bun test"
  }
}

Now:

composer run assets:install
composer run assets:dev

Everything is driven from Composer, keeping the workflow native to PHP developers.

6) Makefile for local DX

Makefile

install:
\tbun install

dev:
\tbun run dev

build:
\tbun run build

test:
\tbun test

Then:

make install
make dev

Simple and memorable.

7) Docker: smaller images, faster CI

Goal: keep Node out, keep layers minimal, and cache deps aggressively.

Laravel example (multi-stage)

# 1) PHP runtime (FPM)
FROM php:8.3-fpm-alpine AS php-base
RUN apk add --no-cache git curl zip unzip libzip-dev \
 && docker-php-ext-install pdo pdo_mysql

# 2) Install Composer deps
FROM php-base AS composer
COPY --from=composer:2 /usr/bin/composer /usr/bin/composer
WORKDIR /app
COPY composer.json composer.lock ./
RUN composer install --no-dev --prefer-dist --no-progress --no-interaction
COPY . .

# 3) Assets with Bun
FROM alpine:3.20 AS assets
RUN apk add --no-cache curl bash
RUN curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash
ENV PATH="/root/.bun/bin:${PATH}"
WORKDIR /app
COPY package.json bun.lockb ./
RUN bun install --frozen-lockfile
COPY vite.config.ts ./
COPY resources ./resources
RUN bun run build  # produces /app/dist (or /public/build) per your Vite config

# 4) Final image
FROM php-base AS app
WORKDIR /var/www/html
COPY --from=composer /app ./
COPY --from=assets /app/public/build ./public/build
# or /app/dist depending on your Vite build

Notes & tips

  • Cache wins: place package.json and bun.lockb before copying the whole repo so bun install layer is cached.

  • No Node layer: we never install Node.js; Bun’s single binary handles everything.

  • If your CI uses Ubuntu images, installing Bun is a one-liner:

    - name: Install Bun
  run: curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash && echo "$HOME/.bun/bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH

8) GitHub Actions: fast, deterministic pipelines

Example workflow (Laravel + Vite + Bun):

name: ci

on: [push, pull_request]

jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest

    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - name: Setup PHP
        uses: shivammathur/setup-php@v2
        with:
          php-version: '8.3'
          tools: composer
          coverage: none

      - name: Install Composer deps (no dev)
        run: composer install --no-dev --prefer-dist --no-progress --no-interaction

      - name: Install Bun
        run: curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash
      - name: Add Bun to PATH
        run: echo "$HOME/.bun/bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH

      - name: Cache bun.lockb
        uses: actions/cache@v4
        with:
          path: ~/.bun/install/cache
          key: ${{ runner.os }}-bun-${{ hashFiles('bun.lockb') }}
          restore-keys: |
            ${{ runner.os }}-bun-

      - name: Install JS deps
        run: bun install --frozen-lockfile

      - name: Build assets
        run: bun run build

      - name: PHP unit tests
        run: vendor/bin/phpunit

Why this works well:

  • Bun’s cache is tiny and quick to restore.
  • bun install is deterministic with bun.lockb.
  • Build steps are seconds, not minutes.

9) Windows, WSL, and permissions

  • WSL (recommended on Windows): install Bun inside WSL (Ubuntu); paths are consistent and file I/O is fast.

  • File permissions: when containerizing, ensure your final image copies built assets with correct ownership (www-data for FPM images).

  • Watch mode: if Vite HMR doesn’t fire inside Docker on Windows, enable polling:

    // vite.config.ts
export default defineConfig({
  server: { watch: { usePolling: true } }
})

10) Common pitfalls (and quick fixes)

  1. Native Node modules (node-gyp) fail

    • Symptom: install error for packages with C/C++ bindings.
    • Fix: prefer pure JS packages or move that single step to a Node-based build image; keep Bun for everything else.

  2. CLIs that assume node binary

    • Symptom: scripts hardcoded to call node.

    • Fix: call with bun run or use bunx:
      bunx some-cli arg1 arg2

  3. CI runners expect npm cache

    • Fix: cache Bun’s directory (~/.bun/install/cache) as shown above.

  4. Monorepo workspaces

    • Bun supports workspaces, but if you have deeply customized Yarn/pnpm plugin workflows, migrate incrementally: start with app packages that are mostly TS/JS and fewer native bindings.

11) Security and supply-chain sanity

  • Fewer devDependencies means a smaller attack surface (fewer transitive deps, fewer CVEs).
  • One binary (Bun) doing install/run/test reduces the number of tools you must keep patched.
  • If you sign or pin artifacts, treat bun.lockb as you treat composer.lock.

12) What “good” looks like in a PHP repo with Bun

  • No global Node.js in the Docker image.
  • Short package.json (Vite + TS only; tests run via bun test).
  • Composer scripts that proxy asset tasks (so the whole team uses the same entry points).
  • CI that installs Bun in one step and caches bun.lockb.

A clean Laravel tree might look like:

app/
bootstrap/
public/
resources/
  js/
  css/
routes/
vendor/
package.json
bun.lockb
vite.config.ts
composer.json

No Babel, no Jest config, no sprawling devDependencies. Just the essentials.

13) Why this actually matters

For PHP teams, the value is pragmatic:

  • Time: installs/builds in seconds change how often you rebuild, restart, and experiment.
  • Simplicity: fewer tools, fewer configs, fewer breakpoints.
  • Focus: JavaScript stops being a blocker; it becomes a utility—like composer install.

Bun doesn’t demand that you “switch stacks.” It simply turns the JS parts of your PHP workflow into fast, compact, dependable steps.

Limits and trade-offs

As impressive as Bun is, it’s not a silver bullet. Every new technology comes with caveats, and Bun is no exception. For PHP developers considering adoption, it’s important to balance the benefits with the practical limitations.

1. Maturity and stability

npm has existed for over a decade, with billions of downloads per week and an ecosystem tested in every imaginable environment. Bun, in contrast, only hit v1.0 in late 2023. It is remarkably stable for its age, but it hasn’t been through years of enterprise-scale battle testing.

  • For small to medium projects: Bun works beautifully today.
  • For mission-critical enterprise projects: npm or pnpm still win in terms of predictability and proven track records.

2. Ecosystem and plugins

Yarn and pnpm have mature plugin ecosystems. Many large organizations have written custom plugins to integrate into internal workflows, monorepos, or CI/CD pipelines. Bun does not (yet) offer the same extensibility. If your organization depends on such plugins, migration will be slower.

3. Native module support

Some packages depend on native Node.js modules compiled with node-gyp (cryptography, image processing, etc.). Bun supports many, but not all. For example, if your Laravel app uses a Node-based package that shells out to native code, you may run into errors.

Workarounds:

  • Replace native modules with pure-JS equivalents where possible.
  • Use Bun for most tasks, but keep Node/npm for the single dependency that fails.

4. CI/CD integration

Most CI/CD providers (GitHub Actions, GitLab, Bitbucket) have Node.js preinstalled. Bun usually requires an extra step to install the binary. This is trivial (a one-liner), but it means existing caching layers and CI images are more npm-centric.

In practice, it’s a small hurdle, but teams with highly optimized CI setups might find adoption slower.

5. Documentation and community size

Bun’s docs are improving, but npm/Yarn/pnpm have years of guides, tutorials, and Stack Overflow answers. If you hit an obscure issue, you may need to rely on GitHub issues or Bun’s Discord rather than a quick Google search.

6. Developer familiarity

Finally, Bun is new. Your teammates probably already know npm. Convincing a team to adopt Bun may require overcoming skepticism, especially from developers who fear “chasing hype.”

The bigger picture

The story of Bun is not just about speed or technical convenience. It reflects a shift in how we think about developer tooling.

From incremental fixes to radical rethink

npm, Yarn, and pnpm are evolutionary: each fixed problems of the previous one, but all stayed within the Node.js paradigm. Bun is revolutionary: it asked, what if we throw away the old assumptions and build a runtime + manager from scratch?

This willingness to rethink from first principles is why Bun feels refreshing. It isn’t bound by decisions made in 2009 when Node.js was young. Instead, it embraces modern standards, TypeScript, JSX, top-level await, web APIs like fetch, as defaults.

A Composer-like experience for JavaScript

For PHP developers, Bun feels oddly familiar. It collapses what npm and dozens of plugins do into a single binary, much like Composer does for PHP. Instead of juggling Babel, Jest, ts-node, dotenv, and a bundler, you install Bun and just… run it.

That sense of coherence is what makes Bun stand out. It reduces friction, lowers barriers, and lets developers focus on writing code rather than configuring toolchains.

The cross-language lesson

The success of Bun also reveals a broader truth: developers outside the JavaScript bubble don’t want to be forced into Node’s ecosystem just to compile assets. PHP developers, Python developers, even Go developers, they all need a lightweight way to run modern JavaScript tasks without dragging in Node.js baggage.

Bun delivers that. It acknowledges that JS is often a secondary tool in other stacks, and makes it fast and painless.

What this means for the future

If Bun succeeds, it may push the ecosystem toward more integrated, all-in-one tooling. We may see a future where runtimes, compilers, and test runners are bundled into cohesive packages rather than spread across dozens of devDependencies.

At the same time, Bun puts pressure on npm and Node.js to evolve. If developers experience Bun’s speed and simplicity, going back to npm install will feel intolerable. Competition here is healthy: even if Bun doesn’t fully replace npm, it raises the bar.

A cultural shift

Finally, Bun highlights a cultural shift: developers are tired of toolchain bloat. They want tools that are fast, integrated, and don’t waste their time. That’s why Bun resonates not just with JavaScript purists, but with pragmatic PHP developers who just want their assets built quickly so they can get back to the server-side code they care about.

Why Bun matters beyond JavaScript

For PHP developers, JavaScript tooling has long felt like a necessary evil. You don’t want to wrestle with Node.js versions, massive node_modules folders, or endless configuration files just to build assets. npm, Yarn, and pnpm made life tolerable, but they were never truly elegant, they were patches on an old foundation.

Bun is different. It’s not just a faster npm; it’s a runtime and toolkit designed from scratch. It installs packages in seconds, runs TypeScript natively, bundles JSX without Babel, and includes a test runner without extra setup. It collapses a whole chain of dependencies into one binary, and in doing so, it gives developers outside the JavaScript world a reason to stop dreading frontend tooling.

That doesn’t mean Bun is perfect. It’s still young, CI/CD pipelines are Node-centric, and certain native Node modules may not work. For enterprise projects where stability trumps innovation, npm or pnpm may remain the safer choice.

But for everyone else, especially PHP developers who want to keep their workflow lean, Bun is already a game-changer. It saves time, reduces clutter, and lowers the barrier to entry for modern JS tooling. In practice, it makes JavaScript feel more like Composer: one tool that just works.

Whether Bun becomes the new standard or simply forces the incumbents to evolve, one thing is clear: the days of waiting minutes for npm install are numbered.