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

221–230 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#221

Post by brandensilva »

jitl wrote: post #190
mindwok wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think irresponsible is the right word, but it has drastically reduced Bun's appeal. All the tools we use have a brand to them, and Bun basically changed their brand overnight to "reckless" in my eyes.

bun has never been fit for production, at least not for load bearing business apps. it’s been haunted by segfault bug reports since the early days, and i personally hit at least one a week when im doing lots of bun stuff. im excited for bun with less segfaults

So reckless but needed.

Re: TypeScript 7

#222

Post by trealira »

dismalaf wrote: post #114
wk_end wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's maybe a bit of a startup-world, HN-blinkered assessment...but that's where we're talking, isn't it? Even before JS became the language for everything, there was a good chunk of time - maybe between 2005 and 2015? - when Python and Ruby were dominant in this environment, and this dismissive attitude towards static typechecking was similarly dominant. Of course in the enterprise space everyone was using Java, and…

> Lisp is dynamically typed. Ish. SBCL aggressively infers types wherever possible. It can do dynamic typing with tags of course. You can also write it with 100% static types. Dynamic typing isn't a defining feature of Lisp style languages (even GC isn't necessary). Some historic Lisps and modern ones are 100% statically typed.

> even GC isn't necessary

Um, isn't it? Don't all Lisp variants have it? IIRC McCarthy's LISP just ran out of memory until the GC was written.

Re: TypeScript 7

#223

Post by vlovich123 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #193
jitl wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but, the existing code was also full of bugs, so isn’t it all a wash in the end?

The initial state has no bearing on whether the process was responsible or not. That's measuring along a different axis. If the bun rewrite lands and it breaks someone's app, that's bad no matter whether there's more or fewer bugs in the final state. The important metric in a rewrite of software that's used in production is stability.

inevitable: https://xkcd.com/1172/

Re: TypeScript 7

#224

Post by VerifiedReports »

skybrian wrote: post #102
MoonWalk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering how this kind of change makes its way into environments like Deno. I'm building a project on Deno too. As I understand it, Deno provides the "language server" for editors like VS Code. So how does Deno use this... whatever it is from Microsoft? What exactly did they deliver here?

Deno resolves import statements in its own way. For example, you can import URLs and JSR packages directly, but the file is usually loaded from Deno’s global module cache. To resolve imports you need to look at the deno.json file and deno.lock file. They also added Deno Workspaces (monorepos) which adds more complexity. This means you need to plug an import resolver to the TypeScript compiler. Deno uses the TypeScrip…

Thanks for the reply. I don't understand what a TypeScript version bump has to do with import statements, though.

Re: TypeScript 7

#225

Post by pjmlp »

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…

The Typescript team is also using AI, even if not to the crazy Bun level.

Re: TypeScript 7

#226

Post by mejutoco »

dimitropoulos wrote: post #165
mejutoco wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for the most advanced type system known to mankind Honest question, what do you mean by this?

I answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48838629

Are you aware of languages like lean or idris? In that comment you mention doom in ts types.

Re: TypeScript 7

#227

Post by pjmlp »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #162
docmars wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mira…

Not sure I understand. Bun's changes are merged on the dev branch and available for use, no? EDIT: Oh, look, blog post on the front page now. https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust > Bun v1.3.14 was the last version of Bun written in Zig. Bun v1.4.0 will be the first version of Bun written in Rust. It's available in canary now. So, yes, it seems it was definitely more than a "marketing stunt" and it's broadly available and…

The irony is that the blog post actually points out as pain points the reasons many of us assert languages like Zig are out of place in the 21st century.

A nice collection of heap-use-after-free crash, use-after-free crash, crash and out-of-bounds read, memory leak, double-free crash, race condition crash.

Re: TypeScript 7

#228

Post by pjmlp »

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.

And how compiled languages were out of fashion, now everything is getting rewritten into them again, thankfully.

Re: TypeScript 7

#229

Post by pjmlp »

Xixi wrote: post #205
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.

There's been a pendulum swing of sort during my career: static languages like C++/Java, then dynamic ones like Python/Ruby/JavaScript, and now back toward typed languages like TypeScript/Rust/Swift. My read is that people were never really against types: they were against type systems that got in the way. Older ones often weren't expressive enough, so you ended up writing verbose patterns just to appease the compiler…

The irony is that I got introduced to the ML type system in 1996, but the industry takes its sweet time to adopt ideas.

Re: TypeScript 7

#230

Post by pjmlp »

horsawlarway wrote: post #36
ajkjk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Look at some of the typing present in MS COM back in the IE5/6 days and we can discuss more. I can honestly tell you - I'll take untyped languages any day of the week over that clusterfuck. Personally - I also think people really underestimate just how much the tooling around types has improved over the last 20 years. If I'm having to try to look up the difference between iBrowserInterface6 and iBrowserInterface5 and…

Why the past tense? COM is the main Windows API surface since Windows Vista, most Win32 C stuff is frozen in Window XP API surface, with minor improvements.

WinRT for all its pain points, is still COM, only with a different set of base interfaces, and using .NET metadata instead of classical COM type libraries.

Post reply on HN