News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by WD-42 on Monday February 23, 2026 @01:09AM (#47118687)
Because Rust makes developers excited in a way that C/C++ just doesn't.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by pjmlp on Monday February 23, 2026 @03:11AM (#47119449)
Yeah, it is as if there were never other compiled languages before to rewrite JavaScripting tooling.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by dwattttt on Monday February 23, 2026 @03:41AM (#47119678)
The word 'excited' in GP's post isn't decorative.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by pjmlp on Monday February 23, 2026 @03:48AM (#47119729)
I am fully aware of it, there have been many 'excited' posts in HN history about various programming languages, with related rewrite X in Y, the remark still stands.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by WD-42 on Monday February 23, 2026 @10:19AM (#47123434)
Why do people get so mad that other people enjoy a language? If I’m more likely to rewrite some tooling because of the existence of a programming language and it’s more performant, isn’t that good for everyone?

We are programmers we are supposed to like programming. These rust haters are intolerable.

Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by pjmlp on Monday February 23, 2026 @10:47AM (#47123866)
Because it gets tiring to have all those Rewrite X in Y, as if X was the very first language where that is possible.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by WD-42 on Monday February 23, 2026 @11:01AM (#47124155)
Is anyone forcing you to rewrite anything in rust?
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by grougnax on Monday February 23, 2026 @03:10AM (#47119445)
C++ is pure trash

C is fine but old

Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by phplovesong on Monday February 23, 2026 @05:17AM (#47120350)
You dont need C(++) for building performant software.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by phplovesong on Monday February 23, 2026 @05:10AM (#47120293)
We had many languages that are faster that are not c/c++.

Compare Go (esbuild) to webpack (JS), its over 100x faster easily.

For a dev time matters, but is relative, waiting 50sec for a webpack build compared to 50ms with a Go toolchain is life changing.

But for a dev waiting 50ms or 20ms does not matter. At all.

So the conclusion is javascript devs like hype, and flooded Rust and built tooling for JS in Rust. They could have used any other compiled languge and get near the same peformance computer-time-wise, or the exact same time human-timewise.

Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by wiseowise on Monday February 23, 2026 @05:23AM (#47120390)
> But for a dev waiting 50ms or 20ms does not matter. At all.

It absolutely does:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-May/153296...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16978932.

Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by pjmlp on Monday February 23, 2026 @07:31AM (#47121476)
To win benchmark games it does, in a world where people keep shipping Electron crap, not really.
Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by phplovesong on Tuesday February 24, 2026 @05:04AM (#47135146)
Not sure if you missed the /s?

Anyway, you posted about speed, and then followed by a link to some python related thing. In python speed has never been a key tenet, at least when it comes to pure cpu based calculations. How much tooling is built in python? All the modern python tooling is mostly Rust based too. So theres that.

I mean for a dev working in JS with JS built tooling the speed is not in milliseconds, but in seconds, even minutes.

I still think my point holds, having a build take int he 10s of seconds vs 50ms is very much good enough for development (the usual frontend save and refresh browser cycle)

Re:The JavaScript Oxidation Compiler by pjmlp on Monday February 23, 2026 @07:31AM (#47121478)
No worries, when Zig hits 1.0, the RIZ projects from JavaScript, Python and Ruby tooling will start hitting HN frontpage.