←back to thread

Skeptical of rewriting JavaScript tools in "faster" languages

(nolanlawson.com)
160 points todsacerdoti | 3 comments | 20 Oct 24 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.722s | source
Show context
noname120 ◴[20 Oct 24 22:04 UTC] No.41898858[source]▶
> I just don’t think we’ve exhausted all the possibilities of making JavaScript tools faster

Rewriting in more performant languages spares you from the pain of optimization. These tools written in Rust are somehow 100× as fast despite not being optimized at all.

JavaScript is so slow that you have to optimize stuff, with Rust (and other performant languages) you don't even need to because performance just doesn't bubble up as a problem at all, letting you focus on building the actual tool.

replies(6): >>41898915 #>>41898923 #>>41898937 #>>41898975 #>>41901141 #>>41901628 #
ignoramous ◴[20 Oct 24 22:13 UTC] No.41898923[source]▶
Being a statically-typed compiled language has its perks (especially when doing systems programming). Regardless, JS runtimes can and will push forward (like JVM / ART did), given there's healthy competition for both v8 & Node.
replies(1): >>41898947 #
noname120 ◴[20 Oct 24 22:16 UTC] No.41898947[source]▶
JavaScript, Python, Lua, I don't see any dynamic language with good performances. Do you have examples?
replies(4): >>41898978 #>>41898999 #>>41899446 #>>41900448 #
1. BoingBoomTschak ◴[20 Oct 24 23:37 UTC] No.41899446[source]▶
Common Lisp (SBCL)?
replies(1): >>41901006 #
2. bitwize ◴[21 Oct 24 05:47 UTC] No.41901006[source]▶
Don't forget Scheme (Gambit, Chez, Racket).
replies(1): >>41901139 #
3. BoingBoomTschak ◴[21 Oct 24 06:11 UTC] No.41901139[source]▶
That's true, though I'd argue these are not as dynamic.