Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
#2Misleading article. Probably partially AI written? Presents nonsense such as eg. the diamond inheritance example as valid-seeming argumentation.
Quite a few points are plain wrong and outdated and under-researched, eg. Python has uv, ruff and Pyrefly, and with that combination, has roughly the same agent ergonomics as Go and lower token count due to higher abstraction level.
Re: Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
#3Misleading article. Probably partially AI written? Presents nonsense such as eg. the diamond inheritance example as valid-seeming argumentation. Quite a few points are plain wrong and outdated and under-researched, eg. Python has uv, ruff and Pyrefly, and with that combination, has roughly the same agent ergonomics as Go and lower token count due to higher abstraction level.
The entire article is speculation. The real answer was posted by Ryan Cavanaugh in the official repo over a year a go: https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411 Why would trust anything else?
Re: Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
#4Misleading article. Probably partially AI written? Presents nonsense such as eg. the diamond inheritance example as valid-seeming argumentation. Quite a few points are plain wrong and outdated and under-researched, eg. Python has uv, ruff and Pyrefly, and with that combination, has roughly the same agent ergonomics as Go and lower token count due to higher abstraction level.
[deleted]
Re: Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
#5It's written in Go because they didn't realize it was a dead-end choice. They optimized their own perf reviews instead of the actual long-term health of the ecosystem...
Re: Why TypeScript 7.0 Was Rewritten in Go
#6It's written in Go because they didn't realize it was a dead-end choice. They optimized their own perf reviews instead of the actual long-term health of the ecosystem...
[deleted]