When JavaScript Gets Too Bare
07/04/2025
A Developer’s Perspective on the Bare Runtime
I recently came across Bare, a new JavaScript runtime that takes minimalism to the extreme. It’s designed to let you “run JavaScript everywhere,” but without the bells and whistles of Node.js or Deno.
First reaction? Intrigued then skeptical.
JavaScript Is Great - Because It’s Easy
JavaScript (and TypeScript) continues to be my go-to language for many things. Not because it’s perfect, but because it’s simple and productive. The tooling, the ecosystem, and the fact that you can go from idea to prototype in a few minutes is powerful. It’s not the fastest or most efficient language, but with modern engines like V8, it’s good enough for most web and backend apps.
Then enters Bare — essentially a JavaScript runtime without a standard library. No fs, no net, no fetch, no built-in utilities. It’s just you, your JS code, and a JavaScript engine like V8 (which you are responsible for integrating).
So what’s the point?
How Bare Is It
To understand where Bare fits, you have to look at what it’s trying to be:
- Not batteries-included: Unlike Node.js or Deno, Bare gives you nothing by default. You must define the runtime environment yourself.
- Highly modular: You decide what goes in, making it ideal for small, focused deployments.
- Cross-platform focused: It aims to run JavaScript in places JS usually doesn’t go—low-spec devices, embedded systems, mobile runtimes, and more.
In that light, it starts to make sense. Bare isn’t trying to be your daily driver. It’s for when you want just enough JavaScript to get the job done and have full control over what’s included and how it behaves.
Let’s Talk Tradeoffs
Here’s where the pragmatist in me kicks in.
If I’m using JavaScript because it’s easy and fast to work with, then Bare removes much of what makes it appealing. I don't want to care about C and low-level systems when writing Javascript.
At that point, the question becomes clear:
If you have the knowledge and skill to go this low-level just to get JavaScript running, why not just use Golang?
Why Golang Is Often a Better Fit
Golang offers a compelling alternative:
- Compiles to native code (no VM, no runtime)
- rich standard library
- low cpu and memory usage
For most real-world apps that need to run on low-resource environments (think IoT devices, routers, small VMs), Go gives you all the control you need—with the productivity and ecosystem that Bare is intentionally missing.
So When Is Bare a Good Fit?
To be fair, Bare does have a niche. It might be the right choice if you have an existing JS codebase you want to port to a constrained environment. Instead of rewriting the business logic you can rewrite the underlying platform. whatever makes more sense for your project.
In that case, Bare is a great tool because it’s so minimal.
Final Thoughts
Tools like Bare are important, not because everyone should use them, but because they push the boundaries of what’s possible. They give us control and minimalism when we really need it, even if it comes at the cost of convenience and developer experience.
But for most developers looking to build reliable, efficient applications, especially in constrained environments, languages like Go are simply more practical. Bare removes the comfort that makes JavaScript appealing, and unless you’re deeply invested in JS or working in very specific contexts, you’re probably better off using a tool designed for that space from the start.
At the end of the day, the tool doesn’t matter as much as the outcome. Choose what makes sense, not what’s trendy. Bare is fascinating — but for me, and probably many others, it’s a sharp tool for a narrow job.