Live data from Hacker News

TypeScript 7

devblogs.microsoft.com

121–130 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#121
I know this is about Typescript. But I am wondering if anything happening in Go that will make this even faster?

Re: TypeScript 7

#122
post #75

The speed up numbers based on their testing: Codebase | TypeScript 6 | TypeScript 7 | Speedup ------------|--------------|--------------|-------- vscode | 125.7s | 10.6s | 11.9x sentry | 139.8s | 15.7s | 8.9x bluesky | 24.3s | 2.8s | 8.7x playwright | 12.8s | 1.47s | 8.7x tldraw | 11.2s | 1.46s | 7.7x Congratulations to the team for pulling off this feat while doing a responsible migration (looking at you, Bun). Quic…

Do you think Bun's migration was irresponsible?

Re: TypeScript 7

#123
congrats to the typescript team.

I have a longer blog post or audio to post. but in short - the javascript/typescript ecosystem is like working with wood.

you can have your cheap, laminate cardboard wood - Ikea type - the code equivalent will be vibe coded apps that are not original.

then on the high end - you can have your crafted furniture | wooden skyscrapers - that use custom joinery & lamination techniques using young lumber to make to make beams that are fireproof. you can also have high end stuff in the javascript/typescript ecosystem that uses A.I as one uses powerful machine tools but with crafting in mind.

for those that dare to make or dare to do - embrace the typescript|javascript ecosystem.

Re: TypeScript 7

#124
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of nuance to that statement. Most languages, including e.g. Java or Typescript, would not be strongly typed according to your definition, because their type system is "unsound": there are known cases where the type system does not protect you and the types are wrong. We generally still call these languages strongly typed. In Typescript this is by design. The most obvious is array variance. Typescript ma…

I may be missing something, but your example doesn't typecheck? class Animal { } class Dog extends Animal{ bark(){return 1} } class Cat extends Animal{ bark(){return 1} } const dogs: Dog[] = [] const animals: Animal[] = dogs animals.push(new Cat()) animals[0].bark()

Should be `dogs[0].bark()`

Re: TypeScript 7

#125
post #17

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…

I've been writing code since the 80s, professionally since the mid 90s, in almost every major language, platform and operating system, from 8 bit microcontrollers to large scale web platforms.

So, not sure that counts as "serious" in your estimation, but I would definitely argue that dynamically typed languages are superior for a large class of problems.

Also, just a tip: it's usually better to be less sure of yourself, and seek to understand other's reasoning. It'll get you a lot farther than trying to convince everyone of how right you are.

If you're not sure why an experienced developer would hold an opinion different than yours, why not just ask?

Re: TypeScript 7

#126
I remember going from Java in IntelliJ straight to TypeScript at work for another project, and I recall how _slow_ everything was in the editor(s). I have been using TypeScript 7 RC and most of my complaints have gone away with regards to speed.

Re: TypeScript 7

#127
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

completely agree. but I felt like even then it was clear that types were a good idea and the implementations were not. For instance I started programming on Java 4 or 5 and the types were pretty bad---but still it was obviously the right way to go compared to JS or, god forbid, shell.

> but still it was obviously the right way to go compared to JS or, god forbid, shell. I just don't think this is true. Frankly - it's hard to argue this at all (even today) given that JS is the dominate language on the planet, and it lacks types... as does python, which had a reputation for decades as THE language to use to teach new folks to code. Or take PHP which dominated server development for a LOOONG time: al…

It's still useful for things like onboarding the fourth person to your start-up. Good types get you half the way to good documentation.

Re: TypeScript 7

#128
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TypeScript just gets in the way of that for me. Not just because it requires an explicit compile step, but because it pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard, and things that are hard become `any`. No thanks! That comment is expected by a Ruby enthusiast, which is arguably one of…

these painpoints seem moot in a world where AI agents are writing all the code.

Type declarations can help an LLM in the same way they help people.

Re: TypeScript 7

#129

Seeing these graphs of astounding performance gains with less memory requirements makes one wonder, Why am I using server-side TypeScript and not Go?

This is build-time performance, not run-time.

Re: TypeScript 7

#130

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 recall anyone disliking types . Lots of people disliked static typing , or more directly static, explicit typing . For instance, I've been around many conversations over the years where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension. There are some genuinely untyped languages…

haven't seen this flamewar in a while. can't say I missed it. surprised people still argue about it, having written my first Python around 1.5.

for the record - I agree completely.

(glad people are over the unicode thing!)

Post reply on HN