Solved: Bejibun: A Full-Stack TypeScript Framework for Bun with CLI, ORM, and MVC Structure.

#devops #programming #tutorial #cloud

🚀 Executive Summary

TL;DR: The Bun ecosystem faces challenges like decision fatigue and integration overhead due to a lack of a dominant, “batteries-included” full-stack framework. Bejibun emerges as a solution, offering a Bun-native, full-stack TypeScript framework with an integrated CLI, ORM, and MVC structure to streamline development and provide a cohesive experience.

🎯 Key Takeaways

The Bun ecosystem suffers from fragmentation, leading to decision fatigue and significant integration overhead when building full-stack applications.
Three primary strategies exist for full-stack Bun development: a DIY ‘best-of-breed’ approach (e.g., ElysiaJS + Drizzle), adopting established frameworks like Next.js with Bun, or embracing new Bun-native frameworks like Bejibun.
Bejibun is an opinionated, Bun-native full-stack TypeScript framework that includes a CLI for code generation, a built-in ORM, and a predefined MVC structure, prioritizing convention over configuration.
While DIY offers maximum flexibility and established frameworks provide maturity, Bejibun focuses on extremely fast initial setup, high ‘Bun-nativeness,’ and enforcing consistency, aiming to be the ‘Rails for Bun.’
Choosing Bejibun means trading some flexibility and a nascent community for significant gains in development speed and a standardized, cohesive development experience built from the ground up for Bun’s APIs.

Discover Bejibun, a new full-stack TypeScript framework for Bun, designed to streamline development with an integrated CLI, ORM, and MVC structure. This guide solves the framework selection dilemma by comparing Bejibun against DIY setups and established frameworks like Next.js.

The Symptoms: Navigating the Bun Full-Stack Framework Maze

You’ve embraced the Bun runtime. You’re sold on the speed, the integrated tooling, and the promise of a simpler, faster TypeScript development experience. But when it’s time to build a full-stack application, you hit a familiar wall: the paradox of choice. The vibrant but fragmented ecosystem leaves you facing several nagging symptoms:

Decision Fatigue: Which router is best? ElysiaJS? Hono? Stric? Which ORM? Drizzle? Prisma? TypeORM? Every new project begins with hours of research and dependency evaluation.
Integration Overhead: You’ve picked your “best-of-breed” libraries, but now you’re the systems integrator. You’re responsible for wiring them together, managing their configurations, and ensuring they play nicely after every update.
Boilerplate Proliferation: You find yourself writing the same server setup, database connection logic, and directory structure for every new project. This manual scaffolding is tedious and error-prone.
Lack of Convention: Without a guiding structure, every developer on the team might organize their code differently. This leads to a higher cognitive load when switching contexts and makes onboarding new team members a challenge.

The core problem is the absence of a dominant, “batteries-included” framework designed specifically for Bun, akin to what Ruby on Rails or Laravel are for their respective ecosystems. This is the void that new, opinionated frameworks like Bejibun aim to fill.

Evaluating Your Options: Three Paths to a Full-Stack Bun Application

To solve the full-stack dilemma, you have three primary strategies. Each comes with significant trade-offs in terms of flexibility, development speed, and ecosystem maturity.

Solution 1: The DIY “Best-of-Breed” Approach

This is the de-facto standard for many early adopters. You act as the architect, selecting individual, high-quality libraries and composing them into a custom stack. A popular and powerful combination is using ElysiaJS for the server/router and Drizzle for the ORM.

This approach gives you maximum control but also maximum responsibility. You define the entire structure and workflow.

Example: Project Setup

Your package.json might look like this:

{
  "name": "my-diy-bun-app",
  "module": "src/index.ts",
  "type": "module",
  "scripts": {
    "start": "bun run src/index.ts"
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "drizzle-orm": "^0.30.1",
    "elysia": "^1.0.1"
  },
  "devDependencies": {
    "bun-types": "latest",
    "drizzle-kit": "^0.20.14",
    "typescript": "^5.3.3"
  }
}

And your entry point, src/index.ts, would involve manually wiring them up:

import { Elysia } from 'elysia';
import { drizzle } from 'drizzle-orm/bun-sqlite';
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
import * as schema from './schema';

// Manual DB setup
const sqlite = new Database('sqlite.db');
const db = drizzle(sqlite, { schema });

// Manual server setup
const app = new Elysia()
  .decorate('db', db)
  .get('/', () => 'Hello from DIY stack!')
  .get('/users', async ({ db }) => {
    return await db.query.users.findMany();
  })
  .listen(3000);

console.log(`DIY App is running at http://${app.server?.hostname}:${app.server?.port}`);

Pros: Unmatched flexibility, minimal overhead, use only what you absolutely need.

Cons: High initial setup time, you own all integration and boilerplate, subject to decision fatigue.

Solution 2: The Established Adapter – Adopting Next.js

The safest path is often to use what’s already popular and battle-tested. Frameworks like Next.js, SvelteKit, and Nuxt have experimental or full support for running with the Bun runtime. This gives you access to a massive ecosystem, extensive documentation, and a large talent pool.

Here, Bun primarily acts as a very fast package manager and runtime, replacing Node.js and npm/yarn.

Example: Project Setup

Getting started is as simple as using the framework’s standard CLI, but with Bun:

# Use Bun to create a new Next.js project
bun create next-app@latest my-next-app

# Run the dev server with Bun
cd my-next-app
bun dev

While you get the speed benefits of the Bun runtime, the framework itself is not built from the ground up to leverage Bun’s specific APIs (like Bun.serve, Bun.file, or the built-in SQLite driver). It’s a Node.js-centric architecture running on a faster engine.

Pros: Mature ecosystem, excellent documentation, large community support.

Cons: Not truly “Bun-native,” may not leverage all of Bun’s performance features, can be heavier than necessary.

Solution 3: The Integrated Newcomer – Embracing Bejibun

This approach involves adopting a new, opinionated, Bun-native framework that provides an all-in-one solution. Bejibun is a prime example, offering a cohesive package with a CLI for code generation, a built-in ORM, and a predefined MVC (Model-View-Controller) structure.

This path prioritizes convention over configuration, aiming to get you productive immediately by making decisions for you.

Example: Project Setup & Scaffolding

The developer experience is centered around its CLI.

# 1. Create a new Bejibun project
bun create bejibun@latest my-bejibun-app
cd my-bejibun-app

# 2. Generate a database model and migration
# This creates `src/models/User.ts` and a migration file.
bun bejibun make:model User --migration

# 3. Generate a resource controller with CRUD methods
# This creates `src/controllers/UserController.ts` with index, show, store, etc.
bun bejibun make:controller UserController --resource

# 4. Run the development server
bun dev

The framework handles the project structure, database connection, and routing boilerplate for you. Your job is to fill in the business logic inside the pre-generated controller methods, which are already wired up to routes.

Pros: Extremely fast initial setup, enforces consistency, designed for Bun from the ground up.

Cons: Newer and less mature, smaller community, you are tied to the framework’s conventions and limitations.

Comparative Analysis: Choosing Your Framework Strategy

To help you decide, here is a direct comparison of the three approaches across key architectural and development concerns.


Feature	Solution 1: DIY Stack	Solution 2: Established (Next.js)	Solution 3: Bun-Native (Bejibun)
Initial Setup Speed	Slow	Fast	Very Fast
Flexibility & Control	Maximum	Medium (within framework)	Low (by design)
“Bun-Nativeness”	High (can use any Bun API)	Low (Node.js compatibility layer)	Maximum (built on Bun APIs)
Opinionation	None	High	Very High
Ecosystem & Community	Fragmented (per-library)	Massive	Nascent
Best For	Experts needing fine-grained control or unique requirements.	Teams needing stability, a large talent pool, and a rich plugin ecosystem.	Greenfield projects, startups, and developers who value development speed over customizability.

Conclusion: Is Bejibun the Rails for the Bun Ecosystem?

The emergence of frameworks like Bejibun signals a maturing Bun ecosystem. It represents a philosophical choice: do you want a toolkit of parts, or do you want a fully assembled machine? There is no single correct answer, only the best fit for your project and team.

Choose the DIY Approach when performance and control are non-negotiable, and you have the senior talent to manage the architectural complexity.
Choose an Established Framework like Next.js when you need the safety net of a massive community and a rich feature set, and you’re comfortable with a primarily Node.js-compatible workflow.
Choose a Bun-Native Framework like Bejibun when you are starting a new project, want to move as fast as possible, and believe in the productivity gains of convention over configuration.

Bejibun and its contemporaries are making a compelling case to be the “Ruby on Rails” or “Laravel” of the Bun world. By trading some flexibility for a massive boost in productivity and a standardized structure, they solve the very real symptoms of framework fatigue and integration overhead. For your next full-stack Bun project, giving an integrated framework a serious look might be the most productive decision you make.