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

A 10x Faster TypeScript

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 943 posts

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#171

Post by cheepin »

pjmlp wrote: post #44
jjice wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall in an article from a while back, the idea was originally rust, but the current compiler design had lots of references shared references that would make the port to rust a lot of work.

Personally, Rust only makes sense in scenarios that automatic memory management of any kind is either unwanted, or it is a quixotic battle making the target group think otherwise. OS kernels, firmware, GPGPU,.... If it is the ML inspired type system, there are plenty of options among compiled managed languages, true Go isn't really on that camp, but whatever.

Rust memory management is automatic. Object destructors run when the object exits scope without needing explicit management by the programmer

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#172

Post by Guillaume86 »

tinco wrote: post #61
pjmlp wrote: post #12

Even though I have my considerations regarding Go, I love that they picked Go instead of the fashion to go Rust that seems to be the norm now. A compiled managed language is much better approach for userspace applications. Pity that they didn't go with AOT compiled .NET, though.

It's not just a pity, it's very surprising. In my eyes Go is a direct competitor of C#. Whenever you pick Go for a project, C# should have been a serious consideration. Hejlsberg designed C# and that a team that he's an authority figure in would opt to use Go, a language which frankly I would not consider to build a compiler in is astounding. Not saying that in a judgemental way, I'm just genuinely surprised. What do…

It seems it's because AOT is a bit of a second fiddle in the dotnet ecosystem and native is a top priority for their case. After hearing the reasoning ( https://youtu.be/ZlGza4oIleY?si=1GKSX61AF20VQr-G&t=1000 ) I don't blame them for choosing Go.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#174

Post by jzackpete »

totallykvothe wrote: post #140
jilles wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to explain why something is not ambiguous it is by definition ambiguous.

No. Ambiguous means that a statement has many possible meanings, not simply that something might be confusing.

that would imply the existence of an objective authority on the meaning of the statement, which is debatable

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#175

Post by dimitropoulos »

tyilo wrote: post #74
dimitropoulos wrote: post #2

yes, this will definitely vastly increase the Doom fps, haha (I’m the guy that did that project). But I think there’s a lot more to it than that. tl;dr — Rust would be great for a rewrite, but Go makes way more sense for a port. After the dust settles, I hope people focus on the outcomes, not the language choice. I was very surprised to see that the TypeScript team didn’t choose Rust, not just because it seemed like…

> Go and Rust are both memory safe. Go doesn't seem to be memory safe, see https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/wbejky/comment/ii7ak8... and https://go.dev/play/p/3PBAfWkSue3

I love Rust, but you can play exactly the same game with Rust: https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#176

Post by electroly »

vessenes wrote: post #164
electroly wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great response but this is "why is Go better than JavaScript?" whereas my question is "why is Go better than C# , given that C# was famously created by the guy writing the blog post and Go is a language from a competitor?" C# and TypeScript are Hejlsberg's children; C# is such an obvious pick that there must have been a monster problem with it that they didn't think could ever be fixed. C# has all that stuf…

It’s a political anti-benefit in most of the open-source world. And C# is not considered a high quality runtime once you leave Windows.

This is Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of C#, working on a politically important project at Microsoft. That's what I mean by political benefit. The larger open source world doesn't matter for this decision which is why this is a simple announcement of an internal Microsoft decision rather than an invitation for comments ahead of time.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#177

Post by dimgl »

dmix wrote: post #157
dimgl wrote: post #138

I'm really surprised by this visceral reaction to not choosing Rust. Go is a great language and I'd choose it for a majority of projects over Rust just based off of the simplicity of the language and the ability to spin up developers on it quickly. Microsoft is a big corporation. Why _not_ use Go?

Do we need to have these conversations weekly?

I wouldn't be asking if there wasn't a visceral reaction from Rust devs. I must have missed previous discussions on other threads.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#178

Post by surajrmal »

Etheryte wrote: post #62
pseudopersonal wrote: post #8

The post title is a bit misleading. It should say a 10x faster build time, or a 10x faster TypeScript compiler . tsc (compiler) is 10x faster, but not the final TS program runtime. Still an amazing feat! But doom will not run faster "To meet those goals, we’ve begun work on a native port of the TypeScript compiler and tools. The native implementation will drastically improve editor startup, reduce most build times by…

I don't think it's misleading at all, because you can't run Typescript. Typescript is either compiled, transpiled or stripped down into another language and that's what gets run in the end.

Tell that to the deno project.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#180

Post by jabart »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #144
pjmlp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not AOT compiled C#, given the team's historical background?

I'm not involved in the decisions, but don't C# applications have a higher startup time and memory usage? These are important considerations for a compiler like this that needs to start up and run fast in e.g. new CI/CD boxes. For a daemon like an LSP I reckon C# would've worked.

The C# compiler is written in C# and distributed to multiple platforms. Along with the JIT that runs on all kinds of devices.

Graph for the differences in Runtime, Runtime Trimmed, and AOT .NET.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/n...

Post reply on HN