Live data from Hacker News

A 10x Faster TypeScript

devblogs.microsoft.com

361–370 of 943 posts

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#361
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imho Go is a far easier language to learn than Rust, so it lowers the barrier to entry for new contributors.

Is learning a language even a thing anymore with $Internal_or_external_LLM_helper plugin available for every IDE? I haven't found syntax lookups to be that much a concern anymore and any boneheaded LLM suggestions are trivial to detect/fix.

You still need to know the language it generates, otherwise you're generating gobbldy gook

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#362

People seem very hurt that the creator of C# didn't pick C# for this very public project from a multi-trillion-dollar corp. I find it very refreshing, they defined logical requirements for what they wanted to do and chose Golang because it ticked more boxes than C#. This doesn't mean that C# sucks or that every C# project should switch to Golang, but there seems to be a very vocal minority affected by this logical de…

My favorite benefit of Go over C# is that I don’t have to carry around a dotnet runtime to every service that touches my Typescript code.

Can't the CLR tools just output native binaries now?

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#363

Hi folks, Daniel Rosenwasser from the TypeScript team here. We're obviously very excited to announce this! RyanCavanaugh (our dev lead) and I are around to answer any quick questions you might have. You can also tune in to the Discord AMA mentioned in the blog this upcoming Thursday.

[flagged]

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust loses a lot of its nice properties without borrow checking and lifetimes, though. For example, resources no longer get cleaned up automatically, and the compiler no longer protects you against data races. Which in turn makes the entire language memory unsafe.

OTOH it would still have Rust's sane type system and all the nice features it makes possible.

OCaml and Haskell already have that nice type system (and even more nice). If OCaml's syntax bothers you, there is Reason [1] which is a different frontend to the same compiler suite.

Also in this space is Gleam [2] which targets Erlang / OTP, if high concurrency and fault tolerance is your cup of tea.

[1]: https://reasonml.github.io/

[2]: https://gleam.run/

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, I can't think of a time a high profile project written in a lower level representation got ported to a higher level language. Prisma is currently being rewritten from Rust to TypeScript: https://www.prisma.io/blog/rust-to-typescript-update-boostin... > Yet projects inevitably get to the stage where a more native representation wins out. I would be careful about extrapolating the performance gains achieved b…

I think the Prisma case is a bit of a red herring. First, they are using WASM which itself is a a low-level representation. Second, the performance gains appear primarily in avoiding the marshalling of data from JavaScript into Rust (and back again I presume). Basically, if the majority of your application is already in JavaScript and expects primarily to interact with other code written in JavaScript, it usually doe…

[deleted]

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#367
post #133
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe they aren't the audience. I don't see how this is ambiguous to anyone that actually uses typescript

deno runs typescript and it won't run 10x faster. It is ambiguous.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anders answers that question here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U&t=1154s Transcript: "But I will say that I think Go definitely is much more low-level. I'd say it's the lowest level language we can get to and still have automatic garbage collection. It's the most native-first language we can get to and still have automatic GC. In contrast, C# is sort of bytecode-first, if you will. There are some ahead…

A missed opportunity to improve c# by dogfooding it with TS compiler rewrite.

They are trying to finish their current project and not redo all the projects which their current project may depend upon.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not accusatory, but do you write your comments with AI? I checked your profile and someone else had the same question a few days ago. It's the persistent structure of "it isn't X – it's Y" with the em dash (– not -) that makes me wonder this. Nothing to add to your comment otherwise, sorry.

Sorry for being pedantic but they are using an en dash (–) not an em dash (—) which is a little strange because the latter is usually the one meant for adding information in secondary sentences—like commas and and parentheses. In addition, in most styles, you're not supposed to add spaces around it. So, I don't think the comment is AI-generated for this reason.

"The en-dash is also increasingly used to replace the long dash ('—', also called an em dash or em rule). When using it to replace a long dash, spaces are needed either side of it – like so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_(typography)

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#370

People seem very hurt that the creator of C# didn't pick C# for this very public project from a multi-trillion-dollar corp. I find it very refreshing, they defined logical requirements for what they wanted to do and chose Golang because it ticked more boxes than C#. This doesn't mean that C# sucks or that every C# project should switch to Golang, but there seems to be a very vocal minority affected by this logical de…

I love their choice of Go because of how simple it is to generate a static executable with no dependencies (ie no dotnet runtime).
Post reply on HN