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

TypeScript 7

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#11

Post by hoppp »

dimitropoulos wrote: post #7
hoppp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure a rust rewrite would be meaningful. Go is great because it's fast to code.It's easy to reimplement typescript in go 1:1 just by looking at the code. Rust on the other hand would take a lot longer to develop. Maybe rust is 20% faster than go but overall the increase from typescript with go is good enough. Maybe rust would yield a 14 times speedup over the 11 times in vscode but go is already good enough…

jokes aside, have you heard of the Jevons Paradox[1]? it feels like the "induced demand" effect to me with the whole "just one more lane" phenomenon you sometimes can see in roadways. when you increase the efficiency of a thing you thereby expand the set of things it can economically be used for, causing an overall increase in total consumption over time - not a decrease like you'd expect from just having made it muc…

Yes, I saw the YouTube video about Jevons paradox from Hank Green yesterday. :)

Re: TypeScript 7

#14

Post by adamddev1 »

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort?

I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

Re: TypeScript 7

#16

Post by samuell »

dimitropoulos wrote: post #2

the real story here is an incredible team that managed to simultaneously keep two separate codebases alive for the most advanced type system known to mankind (yeahhh yeahh Hindley-Milner eat your heart out). huge congrats to the team! looking forward to the Rust rewrite ;)

Steve Francia (author of Hugo and a bunch of other top Go projects) wrote up some thoughts of Go's fit in the agentic era:

https://spf13.com/p/go-the-agentic-language/

Re: TypeScript 7

#17

Post by ajkjk »

adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't think ... serious people... argued that.

That's a bit hyperbolic so I'm sure I'm wrong, but I have an ace: if you point me at very smart people who argued against types I'm gonna say that they weren't serious. I think it's not possible, if you have the relevant experience of working on both typed and untyped codebases of at least moderate complexity with at least one collaborator, to come away seriously believing that the untyped way is superior (unless you were forced to use a really bad typed language, I guess). And arguing that untyped languages are better without that experience is also not serious, in the sense that anyone can unseriously say anything if they don't care about being well-informed enough to be right.

Re: TypeScript 7

#18

Post by chroma_zone »

I'm glad the JSDoc type syntax is still getting some focus. It's my favorite way to use typescript in my own projects. Some of the syntax changes will be annoying to update but most of them seem to be for the better.

Re: TypeScript 7

#19

Post by hebrox »

hoppp wrote: post #11
dimitropoulos wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jokes aside, have you heard of the Jevons Paradox[1]? it feels like the "induced demand" effect to me with the whole "just one more lane" phenomenon you sometimes can see in roadways. when you increase the efficiency of a thing you thereby expand the set of things it can economically be used for, causing an overall increase in total consumption over time - not a decrease like you'd expect from just having made it muc…

Yes, I saw the YouTube video about Jevons paradox from Hank Green yesterday. :)

*The

Re: TypeScript 7

#20

Post by samtheprogram »

ajkjk wrote: post #17
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't think ... serious people... argued that. That's a bit hyperbolic so I'm sure I'm wrong, but I have an ace: if you point me at very smart people who argued against types I'm gonna say that they weren't serious. I think it's not possible, if you have the relevant experience of working on both typed and untyped codebases of at least moderate complexity with at least one collaborator, to come away seriously belie…

....they did ...and... the camp still exists
Post reply on HN