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

681–690 of 943 posts

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#681

Post by cryptonector »

electroly wrote: post #143
DanRosenwasser wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did anticipate this question, and we have actually written up an FAQ entry on our GitHub Discussions. I'll post the response below. https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411 . ____ Language choice is always a hot topic! We extensively evaluated many language options, both recently and in prior investigations. We also considered hybrid approaches where certain components could be written in a nativ…

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…

GP's answer is a great answer to why Go instead of Rust, which u/no_wizard asked about. And the answer to that boils down to the need to traverse data structures in ways which Rust makes difficult, and the simplicity of a GC.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#682

Post by thayne »

electroly wrote: post #176
vessenes wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would have a substantial risk for the typescript project. Many people would see it as an unwanted and hostile push of a Microsoft technology on the typescript community.

And there would be logistical problems. With go, you just need to distribute the executable, but with c#, you also need a .net runtime, and on any platform that isn't Windows that almost certainly isn't already installed. And even if it is, you have to worry if the runtime is sufficiently up to date.

If they used c# there is a chance the community might fork typescript, or switch to something else, and that might not be a gamble MS would want to take just to get more exposure for c#.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#683

Post by WuxiFingerHold »

fixprix wrote: post #160
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…

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…

Thanks for the link. I'm not fully convinced by Anders answer. C# has records, first class functions, structs, span. Much control and I'd say more than Go. I'd even say C# is much closer to TS than Go is. You can use records for the data structures. The only little annoyance is that you need to write the functions as static methods. So an argument for easy translation would lead to C#. Also, C# has advantages over Go, e.g. null safety.

Sure, AOT is not as mature in C# but is this reason enough to be a show stopper? It seems there're other reasons Anders don't want to address publicly. Maybe as simple reasons as "Go is 10 times easier to pick up than C#" and "language features don't matter when the project matters". Those would indeed hurt the image of C# and Anders obviously don't want that.

But I don't see it as big drama.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#685

Post by noodletheworld »

nine_k wrote: post #678
noodletheworld wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for chiming in with these details, but I would just like to say: > It will not conflict with other applications that do the same thing. It is possible not to conflict with existing parallel deployments, but depending on your IPC mechanism, it is by no means assured when you're not forking and are instead launching an external process. For example, it could by default bind a specific default port. This would wo…

> Not conflicting is not a property of parallel binary deployment I fail to see how starting another process under an OS like Linux or Windows can be conflicting. Don't share resources, and you're conflict-free. > IPC is, by definition intended to be accessible by other processes Yes, but you can limit the visibility of the IPC channel to a specific process, in the form of stdin/stdout pipe between processes, which i…

This seems like an oddly specific take on this topic.

You can get a conflicting resource in a shell by typing 'npm start' twice in two different shells, and it'll fail with 'port in use'.

My point is that you can do not conflicting IPC, but by default IPC is conflicting because it is intended to be.

You cannot bind the same port, semaphore, whatever if someone else is using it. That's the definition of having addressable IPC.

I don't think arguing otherwise is defensible or reasonable.

Having a concern that a network service might bind the same port as an other copy of the same network service deployed on the same target by another host is an entirely reasonable concern.

I think we're getting off into the woods here with an arbitrary 'die on this hill' point about semantics which I really don't care about.

TLDR: If you ship an IPC binary, you have to pay attention to these concerns. Pretending otherwise means you're not doing it properly.

It's not an idle concern; it's a real concern that real actual application developers have to worry about, in real world situations.

I've had to worry about it.

I think it's not unfair to think it's going to be more problematic than the current, very easy, embedded story, and it is a concern that simply does not exist when you embed a library instead of communicating using IPC.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#686

Post by keyle »

bdangubic wrote: post #485
jay_kyburz wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bad look for both C# and TypeScript. Anybody starting a new code base now would be looking for ways to avoid both and jump right to Go.

if I had to use Go I’d change my career and go do some gardening :)

I had to, and I do think a lot about gardening these days...

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#687

Post by dlahoda »

thayne wrote: post #682
electroly wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would have a substantial risk for the typescript project. Many people would see it as an unwanted and hostile push of a Microsoft technology on the typescript community. And there would be logistical problems. With go, you just need to distribute the executable, but with c#, you also need a .net runtime, and on any platform that isn't Windows that almost certainly isn't already installed. And even if it is, you ha…

csharp single file for a while https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/sing...

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#688

Post by dlahoda »

IshKebab wrote: post #528
electroly wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The larger open source world doesn't matter for this decision It obviously does because the larger open source world are huge users of Typescript. This isn't some business-only Excel / PowerBI type product. To put it another way, I think a lot of people would get quite pissed if tsc was going to be rewritten in C# because of the obvious headaches that's going to cause to users. Go is pretty much the perfect option…

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/sing...

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#689

Post by osigurdson »

ramon156 wrote: post #121
dagw wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL:DR; - Native executable support on all major platforms - He doesn't seen to believe that AOT compiled C# can give the best possible performance on all major platforms - Good control of the layout of data structures - Had to have garbage collection - Great concurrency support - Simple, easy to approach, and great tooling

So wild that most of these points were something C# was supposed to be good at, and they all boil down to "its just not as good in C# as in Go"

I don't really get the OOP arguments from Anders. You don't need to do OOP stuff in C# - just write a bunch of static functions if you want. However, I totally get the AOT aspect. Creating a simple cli app meant for wide distribution in .NET isn't great because you either have to ship the runtime or try to use AOT which is very much a step out. I have come to the same conclusion and used Go on some occasions for the same reason despite not knowing it very well.

If doing a web server, on the other hand, these things wouldn't matter at all as you would be running a container anyway.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#690

Post by computably »

zoogeny wrote: post #519
throwitaway1123 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, they are using WASM which itself is a a low-level representation. WASM is used to generate the query plan, but query execution now happens entirely within TypeScript, whereas under the previous architecture both steps were handled by Rust. So in a very literal sense some of the Rust code is being rewritten in TypeScript. > Basically, if the majority of your application is already in JavaScript and expects pr…

I'm not denying the facts of the matter, I am denying the conclusion. The circumstances of the situation are relevant. Marshalling cost across IPC boundaries come into play in every single possible situation regardless of language. It is why shared memory architectures exist. It doesn't matter what language is on the other side of the IPC, if the performance gained by using a separate process is not greater than the…

> The world is changing before our eyes. The coding LLMs we have already are good but the ones in the pipeline are better. The ones coming next year are likely to be even better. It is time to revisit our long held opinions.

Making technical decisions based on hypothetical technologies that may solve your problems in "a year or so" is a gamble.

> And in the case of "reads data from a OS socket/file-descriptor and writes data to a OS socket/file-descriptor", which is the case for a significant number of applications including web servers, I'm starting to doubt that choosing a scripting language for that task, as I once advocated, is a good plan given what I am seeing.

Arguably Go is a scripting language designed for exactly that purpose.

Post reply on HN