Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by klysm on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @11:34PM
(#33797065)
I appreciate typescripts stance to be a non-optimizing compiler. Having two optimization layers would make things weird
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by The_Colonel on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:58AM
(#33798442)
I don't think that's what the other commenter suggested. The point is that TypeScript should disallow (or at least make harder) to write code which is hard to optimize by the VM - e.g. allowing function parameters to be of multiple types.
But TS has a design constraint to be essentially a superset of JavaScript so it would be difficult to realize this goal.
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by k__ on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @06:19AM
(#33799274)
I had the impression, my code gets less polymorphic when I use TypeScript.
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by hajile on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @09:17AM
(#33801053)
If only.
This is polymorphic because union types are polymorphic.
let stringProcessor = (foo: string | number): string => {
//do stuff with foo
return "string" + foo
}
It's super easy to make non-optimized arrays and objects this way. type MyFoo = string | number //somewhere in the codebase
//you will get zero hints that this is a polymorphic function
let formatFoos = (foos: MyFoo[]) => foos.map((foo) => `${foo} deoptimized`))
Any use of optional object properties also immediately leads to polymorphism too. I doubt you can find ANY significant TS codebase where this isn't used pervasively. interface Foo {
foo: MyFoo //polymorphic
bar: string
baz?: number //this is polymorphic too
}
let doStuff = (obj: Foo): string {
//do stuff with obj
return "string"
}
doStuff({bar: "abc"})
doStuff({bar: "abc", baz: 123}) //we're now polymorphic
Even if we remove the `?`, it can still be polymorphic because the TS compiler doesn't reorder object properties when compiling. interface Foo {
bar: string //all basic types, so we're good?
baz: number //no more optional, so we're fine right?
}
let doStuff = (obj: Foo): string {
//do stuff with obj
return "string"
}
doStuff({baz: 123, bar: "abc"})
doStuff({bar: "abc", baz: 123}) //we changed order, so now we're now polymorphic
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by brundolf on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @01:34PM
(#33805356)
I'm very surprised the property ordering would matter. Seems like the JS engine itself could easily fix that, no? Silently re-order the properties to fit its own optimization
Do you have a source for the above info? (both because I'm a little skeptical of some parts of it, but also because I'd love to learn more about this topic and I've had trouble finding concrete info in the past)
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by hajile on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @06:00PM
(#33809249)
JS specifies that the order keys are added makes a difference. For this reason, entering them in two different ways is a fundamentally different, non-interchangeable object type.
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by brundolf on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @11:53PM
(#33812493)
You could preserve that information and still have the same native struct, since it only becomes relevant when iterating the keys
Re:Speeding up the JavaScript ecosystem – one library at a time
by klysm on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @09:42AM
(#33801361)
This seems like a moving target though, and I still don’t think the typescript compiler should be responsible for it. I think a linter could make sense though for obviously bad cases.