IMO in JS/TS world its atm Bun vs. Deno in replacing node, npm, pnpm, yarn whatever other package manager.
What i see is, that Deno try to go the vercel way and want to make some money to finance all this open source development. IMO totally legit.
And also, normal, when you spin up a (startup) idea, 19 of 20 will fail.
So i don't get the point of the article actually. The Article points to all this ideas but forgets that deno's core is the runtime. In between the lines, a node / LAMP-Stack history blinks up.
In what concerns me, they certainly are, the reason I initially bothered with Next.js, are all those SaaS products that favour only React on their SDKs, with Next.js as second one, followed by everything else.
Many of those SaaS vendors have partner agreements with Vercel.
I think its a strategic decision to use vercel for hosting and for example deno deploy or cloudfront for edge/lambdas to do frontend instead of using directly AWS. And have no backend or a backend everywhere else then on AWS.
The strategic behind it, is to avoid a dev/sec/cloud ops team that might cost yearly more then paying the 150-200% of costs that you have when you host it on AWS directly. But the 50-100% plus, will save you all the AWS terraforming, IAM, SecOP stuff. If you don't need SQS or a APIGateway etc., Vercel might be the way to go.
Talking about Next: Before there was only Angular with universal rendering that could do SSR / ISR. Second one was Next and den Nuxt. SSR or ISR is often a must have in enterprise projects. If it is not a internal app, you have todo SSR. And with a modern architecture, you decouple the frontend. So, no other options.
Recently we have also Remix, Astro and Svelte Kit for that. And the market get much more diverse, what i like.
Rauch obviously doesn't care about the sustainability of his "JS library, but now it needs to become a unicorn to succeed" playbook because it's already making him money.
