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

141–150 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#141

Post by tomnipotent »

austinthetaco wrote: post #69
jakubmazanec wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am still of the opinion that well organized and named JS is all that anyone needs You probably didn't work on any medium or large codebase and didn't have to do a refactor. > it has always just felt like a maneuver to create a safehaven to C# and java devs scrambling to find roles in the modern landscape What a nonsense. Perhaps read history of TypeScript and you'll learn why it was created.

You really should just not assume things about people with no reason other than "they dont like the things i like so therefor they must not be experienced". I've worked on plenty of very very large codebases with large teams. > What a nonsense. Perhaps read history of TypeScript and you'll learn why it was created. did you? it was created by microsoft, a C# shop, to support their existing workflows around typing and…

> You really should just not assume things

And yet you follow this up by making assumptions about the motivations behind TS. Anders has mentioned that TS was purely motivated by internal MS teams struggling with huge JS codebases, nothing to do with C# but clearly his work on other languages would have influenced how he approached designing the language.

Re: TypeScript 7

#142

Post by IshKebab »

chem83 wrote: post #23
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.

dhh is still not very fond of it. To each their own. https://world.hey.com/dhh/turbo-8-is-dropping-typescript-701...

I mean he's a Ruby developer. He has to delude himself that static typing is a waste of time.

Re: TypeScript 7

#143

Post by docmars »

ricardobeat wrote: post #132
hackerbrother wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Bun's migration was irresponsible?

Not the op, but this TS migration started long before AI was able to help. It was done slowly and carefully, as a project supporting millions of users should. And the benefits are very clear. Bun’s port was a vibe coding fever dream that happened from one day to the next, with much looser motive, and yet to be proven reliable.

Bun's migration to Rust was nothing more than a marketing stunt to sell more Claude subs under the impression it can perform this kind of work at scale, assuming that most who were convinced by it wouldn't look under the hood at what really took place.

It has its merits as a proof of concept that could eventually be cleaned up and released properly later, but I can't see it any other way.

Too many see it as this miraculous one-shot and are using it as a blueprint to justify more layoffs and buzzword salad in their boisterous LinkedIn announcements about how they're "completely overhauling their strategy" in engineering. Hogwash.

Re: TypeScript 7

#144

Post by thunderfork »

Exoristos wrote: post #51

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

Whether the performance difference between Go and JS (via node or whatever) matters depends on your use case - it definitely matters for the TS compiler, but it might not matter at all for your CRUD app.

Re: TypeScript 7

#145

Post by librasteve »

kstrauser wrote: post #42
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 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…

[flagged]

Re: TypeScript 7

#146

Post by austinthetaco »

tomnipotent wrote: post #141
austinthetaco wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should just not assume things about people with no reason other than "they dont like the things i like so therefor they must not be experienced". I've worked on plenty of very very large codebases with large teams. > What a nonsense. Perhaps read history of TypeScript and you'll learn why it was created. did you? it was created by microsoft, a C# shop, to support their existing workflows around typing and…

> You really should just not assume things And yet you follow this up by making assumptions about the motivations behind TS. Anders has mentioned that TS was purely motivated by internal MS teams struggling with huge JS codebases, nothing to do with C# but clearly his work on other languages would have influenced how he approached designing the language.

They have said time and time again it was because their C# team was writing frontend code in a huge codebase and wanted similar support.

Re: TypeScript 7

#147

Post by austinthetaco »

jakubmazanec wrote: post #107
austinthetaco wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should just not assume things about people with no reason other than "they dont like the things i like so therefor they must not be experienced". I've worked on plenty of very very large codebases with large teams. > What a nonsense. Perhaps read history of TypeScript and you'll learn why it was created. did you? it was created by microsoft, a C# shop, to support their existing workflows around typing and…

> You really should just not assume things about people with no reason other than "they dont like the things i like That's not the reason for my comment. I truly don't understand how after so many years someone "isn't sold" on TypeScript. Sure, you don't have to use it if you don't want to, but if don't see how it's truly essential in current JS development, I don't know what else to assume, other than OP doesn't hav…

Its not essential. Good organization. Good functional configuration. Proper separation. Good variable naming. All of these things are what make it more than easy to work without type declaration. People have been working on huge code bases without types for a VERY long time with no issue, especially in functional paradigms.

Re: TypeScript 7

#148

Post by tomnipotent »

austinthetaco wrote: post #146
tomnipotent wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You really should just not assume things And yet you follow this up by making assumptions about the motivations behind TS. Anders has mentioned that TS was purely motivated by internal MS teams struggling with huge JS codebases, nothing to do with C# but clearly his work on other languages would have influenced how he approached designing the language.

They have said time and time again it was because their C# team was writing frontend code in a huge codebase and wanted similar support.

No they haven't. It's been said time and time again that their teams were struggling with large JS code bases for Bing Maps and O365 web apps.

Re: TypeScript 7

#149

Post by mckee_plus_plus »

horsawlarway wrote: post #50
ajkjk wrote: 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…

When I start a hobby project without types, and then get mental fatigue when returning to a shelved codebase and add ts, I find lots of bugs just by adding types.

Re: TypeScript 7

#150

Post by DanRosenwasser »

m3h wrote: 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…

> How does this affect downstream tools like tsdown and esbuild, which need to build the TypeScript codebase?

esbuild doesn't rely on TypeScript at all, so there's no issue there.

With tsdown on the other hand, it depends on if you use --isolatedDeclarations. If not, you can install TypeScript 6 side-by-side (instructions for this are on the blog)

Post reply on HN