This is my biggest issue with all this.

It's not that they're using AI, it's the massive rug pull on bun users.

Maybe Anthropic decided to push this because of all the attention the experiment got.

If it works out it’ll be a good study case for marketing.

This will burn the little reputation and trust Bun has been able to achieve in the past couple of years.

I guess this is what happens when you only have to respond to your corporate overlords.

I will migrate my Bun projects in production to something else.

The AI device thing reeks of 2024.

Nobody wants AI embedded into the OS spying on you every move.

Yeah this is going the way of the Pixelbook.

maybe Fuchsia?

The target is definitely not the K12 education market. It looks more like a premium device which most Chromebooks are not.

On second thought, I think it's not for K12 after all.

Very cool. Shame the website is dark mode only which only makes it harder to read for people with astigmatism.

But a very rare form of astigmatism I guess? Because I've had it for 30+ years and I can read it perfectly without any effort?

halation (bleeding of the text into the background) happens for all people with astigmatism with white text on dark background but severity will obviously differ depending on your personal environment.

But given that about 50% of people have some form of astigmatism dark mode default has been a horrid trend.

Ah maybe because I have always lights off, so it's dark surrounded by dark ^^

I can read it for like a minute or two. After that I get halation issues and the white text seems to start burning into my retina or something.

It's not so bad for a UI like eg Spotify but anything with actual text content is an issue.

That's because Obsidian is black. But we're planning to add light mode in the near future :)

I'm a fan of Obsidian and your work but dark mode only is an issue for a big percentage of the population.

https://medium.com/@h_locke/why-dark-mode-causes-more-access...

The app has had light mode since 2020 :)

Obsidian is a small team and I am pretty much the only person working on the website but I hope to add it soon.

I use Obsidian with light mode ;)

(also applied to work with you!)

Wtf are you doing with all the money? Hire some actual engineers already, Jesus.

Most people don't pay for Obsidian, do you imagine they're raking in hundreds of millions?

It's hard to know how many users they have, and they're overrepresented on this forum so it's easy to be carried away with our estimates, but let's say they have 1M active users. Then let's say 5% of them pay the $50/yr for sync. That's only $2.5M, divided between 5-10 people.

Good salary, but not outrageous and not much room to add many employees.

I was "bullied" into making a light theme for my app as well after refusing for months - I didn't realize how many people need a light mode.

Reader mode in Firefox is one click to dark text on a white background. Presumably other browsers have the same thing.

Try Obsidian Web Clipper's Reader feature for Firefox :)

https://obsidian.md/help/web-clipper/reader

Yeah C# is fantastic. I also love EF.

I stopped using it because overall it feels like Microsoft has lost the plot with .NET.

What I hate about .NET is the atrocious naming.

Net Core, Net Framework, Net Common Core, .NET..

And God forbid any of these frameworks ever expose what they are in a config file. You start a project, hand it to a colleague and he can't figure out whether it's Framework or Core by looking at the files. You Google and are immediately bombarded by 15 year old threads.

If you start a project with .NET Framework in 2026, you're doing it wrong, plain and simple.

And the .csproj files do tell you which .NET they are.

<TargetFrameworkVersion>v4.</TargetFrameworkVersion> or <TargetFramework>net4</TargetFramework> is the old framework. Also, if the file is an unreadable mess listing all .cs files, it's generally .NET Framework.

<TargetFramework>netstandard2.0</TargetFramework> is .NET Standard 2.0, which means this library can be consumed from either Framework or modern .NET.

And finally, <TargetFramework>netX.0</TargetFramework> (X >= 5) is the modern .NET.

Forget about the old stuff; just use .NET 10.

It's really, really good now. DX is fantastic. Yes, the hot-reload will probably never match that of interpreted languages, but for a compiled language, it is good.

File-based apps are easy to get started with: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/fundamentals...

EF is solid and proven. Easy, low-lift type safety end-to-end from DB up with very good perf.

Tooling is dead simple and consistent; `dotnet build`, `dotnet test`, `dotnet run`, `dotnet ef database update`, `dotnet ef migrations add`, `dotnet tool restore`. No mix of build tools and toolchains.

Never tried .NET 10 but hot-reload was garbage with .NET 9 and 8.

It failed very often and you had to manually restart the dev process. Even when it worked, it was no where as fast as eg using Bun with TS.

Also Minimal APIs didn't have feature parity vs MVC even 4 years after release which is quite frankly insane. I hear in .NET 10 they've finally added some validation. Not sure how it compares to something like FluentValidation which still is one of the most downloaded nuget packages.

    > It failed very often and you had to manually restart the dev process. Even when it worked, it was no where as fast as eg using Bun with TS

Really depends on what you're doing. For run of the mill APIs, it works pretty flawlessly with `--non-interactive` and just auto-restarts when it needs to, hot reloads when it can (again, I'm not comparing this to interpreted languages and runtimes; the constraints are just different).

I have a clip of this in action with .NET 9 generating OpenAPI contracts and TS bindings at the top of this README: https://github.com/CharlieDigital/dn9-openapi-codegen/blob/m...

    > Also Minimal APIs didn't have feature parity vs MVC even 4 years after release which is quite frankly insane

Why does it need to? That's like saying express should have feature parity with Nest.js; they have different use cases in my view :shrug:

I had to run it with --no-hot-reload to get a consistent behavior.

> That's like saying express should have feature parity with Nest.js

I disagree but, objectively, validation is a fundamental part of any web app or API.

They shipped Minimal APIs in .NET 6 without validation. The functionality was already there for MVC so it's not like they had to build it from scratch. And yet, they didn't add it until .NET 10.

I just find it very weird that there are two standards here.

Express is ostensibly the analog of minimal APIs and ships with no validation. You pick your validation library and build on top of it. A less complete, less opinionated, bare-bones stack on which you build with explicit stack choices.

Nest.js is ostensibly the analog of controller APIs and ships with validation. A more complete, more opinionated approach where you lean in to stack defaults.

This makes total sense in the Node.js world; I don't see why controller and minimal have to have feature parity when they have different use cases and, like Express, it's possible to pull down third party validation libraries. Controller API is more opinionated like Nest.js while minimal is intentionally less opinionated like Express.

Most web projects use JSON files for configuration. There are also some XML files for project configuration. If anything, you can run into too much configuration files.