I was referring to the type system in the formal "specification" sense, not the implementation details of the compiler, such as the compiler's runtime (Go, or, in the past, JavaScript/Node). it's too bad there's no specification for TypeScript the way there is for JavaScript and many other things (most?). in that sense, the performance of the type system is uncoupled from the semantics of the type system itself (as the Go port has thoroughly illustrated!).
I mentioned Hindley-Milner because I am under the belief that the HM system (as in OCaml) is, in the same formal/semantic/specification sense, perhaps more advanced. but, as is often with these things, the rubber meets the road on which one of them has been shown to actually run Doom, lol, to which TypeScript is currently the undisputed king.
jokes aside, have you heard of the Jevons Paradox[1]? it feels like the "induced demand" effect to me with the whole "just one more lane" phenomenon you sometimes can see in roadways. when you increase the efficiency of a thing you thereby expand the set of things it can economically be used for, causing an overall increase in total consumption over time - not a decrease like you'd expect from just having made it much more efficient. "a smaller slice of a much bigger pie is still more pie" or something like that.
in TypeScript's case with the "pie" being compute time, things like HKTs (e.g. hotscript, hkt-toolbelt) that might not have made as much sense in the past suddenly become so much more feasible, but also are the very things that drag that hard-fought efficiency win back down into the mud. is it worth it? library authors will ultimately be the ones to decide the big chunks of that question by virtue of what they ship in their types.
the real story here is an incredible team that managed to simultaneously keep two separate codebases alive for the most advanced type system known to mankind (yeahhh yeahh Hindley-Milner eat your heart out).
> Libraries like Effect have increased the popularity of generators, but it's still an unusual syntax for the vast majority of JavaScript developers.
I'm getting so tired of hearing this. I loved the article and it's interesting stuff, but how many more decades until people accept generators as a primitive??
used to hear the same thing about trailing commas, destructuring, classes (instead of iife), and so many more. yet. generators still haven't crossed over the magic barrier for some reason.
with all the hype around durable execution... what makes it difference from job queuing solutions like BullMQ or Agenda.js that rely on DLQ on top of Redis or Mongo? is it just a DX thing?
didn't the latest unreal release have something voxel related? cool to see more voxel stuff happening. we've come a long way since the Euclideon "unlimited detail" days.
the Doom in TypeScript types project wouldn't have been possible without Nick and Helion - I owe Nick a huge thanks! He helped with some of the more obscure parts of the engine and also helped make a super small WAD that is what the game eventually ran in.
you're faulting a headline for being precise and accurate. there is no sense in which TypeScript is a runtime. TypeScript is literally a complier (targeting JavaScript, which has runtimes) and nothing more and has always been as such.
Most notably: a very prominent camera (the PYXIS 12K) was announced on Friday for $4,995 USD and on Sunday was changed to $6,595. Almost all other prices saw this 34% increase (but only for the US, all other countries are unaffected).
Thanks for explaining. But I guess I'm still not clear on how the work gets divvied up. Not tryin to be a hater - I'll have to give it a spin - but that part's a bit murky to me still.
thank you for the clarification. you're right. I guess I was just trying to say that it's a spectrum (even if Rust is very very far along the way towards not having any holes). I can't seem to find it but there's some Tony Hoare or maybe Alan Turing quote or something like that about the only 100% correct computer program to ever exist was the first one.
hi! author of the Doom thing, here. while I won't be the one to try, my answer is "absolutely yes, it will make a massive difference". Sub-1-day Doom-first-frame is probably a possibility now, if not much more because actually the thing that was the largest bottleneck for Doom-in-TypeScript-types was serializing the type to a string, which may well be considerably more than 10x faster. Hopefully someone will try some day!
organizer of https://www.youtube.com/@MichiganTypeScript