I'd like to see if it makes a difference to the version of DOOM that runs in the TypeScript type system.
A 10x Faster TypeScript
421–430 of 943 posts
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#422Why not just work with the SWC folks and get the Rust implementation mainlined?
They want exact backwards compatibility with the JS implementation, so they're doing a lit-by-line port.
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I read the article it was very clear, due to the compiler's in-memory graphs, that they needed a GC. (IE, as opposed to reference counting, where if you have cyclic loops, you need to manually go in and "break" the loop so memory gets reclaimed.)
> When I read the article it was very clear, due to the compiler's in-memory graphs, that they needed a GC. It's actually pretty easy to do something like this with C, just using something like an arena allocator, or honestly, leaking memory. I actually wrote a little allocator yesterday that just dumps memory into a linkedlist, it's not very complicated: http://github.com/danieltuveson/dsalloc/ You allocate wherever…
I get the impression they'd use smart pointers (C++) or Rc/Arc (Rust)
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#424Earlier 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.
You're right, oops. I agree with your reasoning (comment still gives off slop vibes but that's unprovable). But the parent has been flagged, so I'm not sure if that means admins/dang has agreed with me or if it was flagged for another reason.
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#425I'm sold.
I'll give Typescript yet another go. I really like it and wish I could use it. It's just that any project I start, inevitably the sourcemap chain will go wrong and I lose the ability to run the debugger in any meaningful way.
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#426I'd like to see if it makes a difference to the version of DOOM that runs in the TypeScript type system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43184291 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCsluv5FXA
Haha this was my first thought too
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they'll also be distributed in WASM too, which is easier to be integrated with JavaScript codebases.
Would running WASM be any faster than running JS in V8?
Very likely. Migrating compute-intensive tasks from JavaScript was one of the explicit goals behind the invention of WASM.
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#428Use browser and web for websites, not applications. For apps, create native downloadable desktop software, which also work offline.
I prefer having all my apps in the browser.
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#429Sounds like they're automatically generating Go code from ts in some amount [0]. I wonder if they will open the transpilation effort, in this way you'd create a path for other TypeScript projects to generate fast native binaries Opened discussion [1] - [0] https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/410 - [1] https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/467
The automatic generation was mainly a step to help with manual porting, since it requires so much vetting and updating for differences in data layout; effectively all of the checker code Anders ported himself!
Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't Microsoft largely hitched their horse to Go these days, though (not just this project)? They even maintain their own Go compiler: https://github.com/microsoft/go It is a huge company. They can do more than one thing. C#/.NET certainly isn't dead, but I'm not sure they really care if you do use it like they once did. It's there if you find it useful. If not, that's cool too.
We're talking about a nominal amount of funding to effectively train 10s of thousands of developers. I think Microsoft can find the money if they wanted to.
I'm sure Microsoft could find the money to do a lot of different things. But why that instead of the infinite alternatives that the money could be spent on instead?