Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

matklad.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 245 posts

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#181

Post by asddubs »

grumblingdev wrote: post #116

TypeScript is an incredible language in general. The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Programming is mostly about gradually figuring out the right design I find. JS/TS let's me evolve things naturally without big rewrites. function foo() {} function bar() {} function…

I don't like that at all. it all seems to be too informally specified and requires divine knowledge to actually know how you're supposed to use the magic function properties.

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#182

Post by flylikeabanana »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #140
grumblingdev wrote: post #116

TypeScript is an incredible language in general. The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Programming is mostly about gradually figuring out the right design I find. JS/TS let's me evolve things naturally without big rewrites. function foo() {} function bar() {} function…

>>> Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Python, where everything is an object.

FP in python is painful without tail call elimination and the higher-order function syntax is so clunky

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#183

Post by magicalist »

austin-cheney wrote: post #66
baq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest expressivity pain point in practice for me is try/catch not being an expression, so I can’t do const c = try { … }

I never ever use try/catch in my code. The only time its really necessary is to wrap JSON.parse on use of untrusted input. For everything else it just feels sloppy as through there is insufficient logic in place for handling primary conditions versus edge cases. Also, try/catch will never compile in the JIT.

> Also, try/catch will never compile in the JIT

This was only ever true in V8, and hasn't been the case since 2017 with the optimizing compiler switch from Crankshaft to TurboFan.

Take a break before lecturing commenters on "guessing about performance is perhaps the most frequent anti-pattern in all programming" next time :)

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#184

Post by nightpool »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #169
grumblingdev wrote: post #116

TypeScript is an incredible language in general. The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Programming is mostly about gradually figuring out the right design I find. JS/TS let's me evolve things naturally without big rewrites. function foo() {} function bar() {} function…

The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Yes. C#. The equivalent are `Func` and `Action` types representing functions with a return and without a return. In fact, the JavaScript lambda expression looks awfully familiar to C#. One of the snippets below is C# and the other…

this doesn't really address OP's point, where in JS you can do:

    const foo = () => doSomething;
    foo.help = "this is a description of the function";
    const commands = [foo];
    
    // print help
    commands.forEach(c => console.log(c.name, c.help || "No help is available for this function");
Presumably this isn't possible in C# because it's statically typed, so the object returned by "() => doSomething" can't be converted into one that supports adding more properties?

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#185

Post by simlevesque »

austin-cheney wrote: post #66
baq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest expressivity pain point in practice for me is try/catch not being an expression, so I can’t do const c = try { … }

I never ever use try/catch in my code. The only time its really necessary is to wrap JSON.parse on use of untrusted input. For everything else it just feels sloppy as through there is insufficient logic in place for handling primary conditions versus edge cases. Also, try/catch will never compile in the JIT.

> Also, try/catch will never compile in the JIT

That's false. It used to be this way with Crankshaft but since 2017 we have Turbofan which solves this.

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#186

Post by svachalek »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #129
rtpg wrote: post #4

TS's type system is fun but a part of me always wonders how much faster TS's compiler would be if it was written in a compiled language (assuming "good implementation", which is a big assumption!)

The type system is fun right up until you are using it to its full ability in generics..then you look at the 5 lines of 'type logic' you spent the last day debugging and ask yourself how you got here.

I've definitely seen it suck people into a black hole. It works best when you think of it as a form of documentation with a benefit of enforcement, rather than trying to use the type system to prevent every conceivable bug. Massive unreadable types don't help programmers write better code.

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#187

Post by nightpool »

flylikeabanana wrote: post #182
_ZeD_ wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Python, where everything is an object.

FP in python is painful without tail call elimination and the higher-order function syntax is so clunky

JS also doesn't have TCE, but for Python even just the lambda limitations are surprisingly annoying. I can't tell you how many times i've been frustrated because it's nearly impossible to put a print statement into a python lambda

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#188

Post by hocuspocus »

thefaux wrote: post #168
grumblingdev wrote: post #116

TypeScript is an incredible language in general. The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Programming is mostly about gradually figuring out the right design I find. JS/TS let's me evolve things naturally without big rewrites. function foo() {} function bar() {} function…

This blend of functional and oo programming was pioneered by scala.

Scala also supports structural typing, even though it's a bit clunky and against its nature.

And advanced typelevel shenanigans you see in TS usually have their counterpart in Scala, especially in Scala 3's meta-programming features.

Re: TypeScript is surprisingly ok for compilers

#190

Post by pull_my_finger »

grumblingdev wrote: post #116

TypeScript is an incredible language in general. The fact that Functions are Objects that can have properties/methods is supremely undervalued. Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional. Programming is mostly about gradually figuring out the right design I find. JS/TS let's me evolve things naturally without big rewrites. function foo() {} function bar() {} function…

> Are there other languages that do this so nicely? It's the perfect blend of OO and functional.

In Lua, you have regular, non-object functions, but you can also create a callable table using metamethods, and keep whatever data you have with it. Add to that the colon syntax sugar (implicit self vs explicit self) on table methods and I think you have a beautiful "opt-in" OO story without the unintuitive `this` business from JS.

Post reply on HN