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

711–720 of 943 posts

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#711

Post by debugnik »

sterlind wrote: post #557
andy81 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F# isn't in the running for third either. Maybe top ten behind MSSQL, Powershell, Excel Formulae, DAX etc.

hey, there are dozens of us F# users! dozens! I do love F#, but its compiler is a rusty set of monkey bars. It's somehow single pass, meaning the type checker will struggle if you don't reorder certain expressions - but also dog slow, especially for `inline` definitions (which work more like templates or hygienic macros than .net generics, and are far more powerful.) File order matters, bafflingly! Newer .net feature…

> Newer .net features like spans and ref structs are missing with no clear path to implementation

Huh? They're already implemented! It took years and they've still got some rough edges, yes, but they've been implemented for a few years now.

Agreed with the rest, though. As much as I love working with F#, I've jumped ship.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#712

Post by salmonellaeater »

sublinear wrote: post #708

Typescript compiles to javascript, so does this not prove what people have been screaming from the rooftops for so long that there's a significant performance penalty with typescript for almost no actual benefit?

No.

You seem to be referring to runtime performance of compiled code. The announcement is about compile times; it's about the performance of the compiler itself.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#713

Post by [deleted] »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #480
uticus wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but C# is the Microsoft language, and I would say TypeScript is 2nd place Microsoft language (sorry F# folks - in terms of popularity not objective greatness of course). So it's not just that the lead architect of C# is involved in the TypeScript changes. It's also that this is under the same roof and the same sign hangs on the building outside for both languages. If Ford made a car and powered it with a Chevy e…

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.

[deleted]

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#715

Post by salmonellaeater »

zestyping wrote: post #643

That's a pretty misleading clickbait title. TypeScript isn't getting 10x faster; the TypeScript compiler is getting 10x faster. I would argue it needs editing, as it violates the HN guideline: > use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

My initial interpretation of the title was that the TS team was adding support for another, faster, target such as the .NET runtime or native executables. The title could use some editing.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#716

Post by zoogeny »

throwitaway1123 wrote: post #704
zoogeny wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your larger point which seems to be that all greenfield projects are necessarily best suited to low level language That is not my intention. Perhaps you are reading absolutes and chasing after black and white statements. When I say "it makes me think I should ..." I am not saying: "Everyone everywhere should always under any circumstances ...". It is a call to question the assumption, not to make emphatic universal…

> That is not my intention. Perhaps you are reading absolutes and chasing after black and white statements. The first comment I wrote in this thread was a response to the following quote: "Yet projects inevitably get to the stage where a more native representation wins out." Inevitable means impossible to evade. That's about as close to a black and white statement as possible. You're also completely ignoring the subs…

Ah, now we're at the dictionary definition level. So let's check Google:

    Inevitable:
          as is certain to happen; unavoidably.
       informal
          as one would expect; predictably.
          "inevitably, the phone started to ring just as we sat down"
Which interpretation of the word is "good faith" considering the rest of my post? If I said "If you drink and drive you will inevitably get into an accident" - would you argue against that statement? Would you argue with Google and say "I have sat down before and the phone didn't ring"?

It is Hacker News policy and just good internet etiquette to argue with good faith in mind. I find it hard to believe you could have read my entire post and come away with the belief of absolutism.

edit: Just to add to this, your interpretation assumes I think Django (the Python web application framework) will unavoidably be rewritten in a lower level language. And Ruby on Rails will unavoidably be rewritten. Do you believe that is what I was saying? Do you believe that I actually believe that?

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#717

Post by wodenokoto »

So the end goal is that I can write a typescript application and deploy an executable to my server? Or is it just to deliver faster versions of typescript tools and MS developed typescript applications?

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#718

Post by estebarb »

vips7L wrote: post #599
almosthere wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.NET executables requires a runtime environment to be installed. Go executables do not. TSC is installed in too many places for that burden to be placed all of a sudden. It is the same reason why Java has had a complicated acceptance history too. It's fine in the places that it is pre-installed, but no where else. Node/React/Typescript developers do not want to install .net all of a sudden. If you react that poorly,…

.NET has been able to build a self contained single file executable for both the JIT and AOT target for a quite some time. Java also does not require the user to install a runtime. JLink and JPackage have both been around for a long time.

C# AOT filesizes are huge compared to Go.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#719

Post by DeathArrow »

bokwoon wrote: post #413
dagw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an interview with Anders Hejlsberg here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGza4oIleY The question comes up and he quickly glosses over it, but by the sound of it he isn't impressed with the performance or support of AOT compiled C# on all targeted platforms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U [19:14] why not C#? Dimitri: Was C# considered? Anders: It was, but I will say that I think Go definitely is -- it's, I'd say, 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 C#, it's sort of bytecode first, if you will; there is some ahead-of-time compilat…

>C# is heavily OOP-oriented, and we would have had to switch to an OOP paradigm to move to C#

They could have used static classes in C#.

Re: A 10x Faster TypeScript

#720

Post by selfmodruntime »

emseetech wrote: post #680
no_wizard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like others I'm curious about the choice of technology here. I see you went with Go, which is great! I know Go is fast! But its also a more 'primitive' language (for lack of a better way of putting it) with no frills. Why not something like Rust? Most of the JS ecosystem that is moving toward faster tools seem to be going straight to Rust (Rolldown, rspack (the webpack successor) SWC, OXC, Lightning CSS / Parcel etc)…

| with no frills. People say this like it's a bad thing. It's not, it's Go's primary strength.

Yes. For Webservers. Not for compilers. I wrote a bunch of compilers, and Go is not a language I would choose for this.
Post reply on HN