←back to thread

Skeptical of rewriting JavaScript tools in "faster" languages

(nolanlawson.com)
160 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 20 Oct 24 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.193s | source
Show context
sksxihve ◴[20 Oct 24 22:16 UTC] No.41898942[source]▶
> Whereas if it’s written in a native language, I’d need to check out the source code and compile it myself – a big barrier to entry.

Is it though? Rust/Zig/Go programs are pretty much all incredibly easy to checkout and compile, it's one of the big selling points of those languages. And at the end of the day how often are javascript developers fixing the tooling they use even when it's written in javascript?

I've always felt learning new languages give me not only new tools to use but shapes the way I think about solving problems.

replies(3): >>41898974 #>>41900897 #>>41901026 #
M4v3R ◴[21 Oct 24 05:20 UTC] No.41900897[source]▶
I agree with you on the easy part, but it’s definitely not as fast. In JS you get instant hot code reload and even without that the interpreter starts up pretty fast. In comparison Rust takes a while to recompile even with simple changes, and if you have more changes in many files (eg. switching between branches) then it’s really slow.
replies(2): >>41903802 #>>41904734 #
1. sksxihve ◴[21 Oct 24 14:44 UTC] No.41904734[source]▶
I didn't say compiling was fast, though compiling go is pretty fast. I also don't think anyone is arguing that tools need to be written in AoT languages, if you or anyone want to use js and js tools go for it.

I think having more choices is a good thing, and sometimes rewriting something from scratch will result in a cleaner/better version. The community at large is going to decide which tooling becomes the standard way to do it, so the author should make an argument on why the js tooling is better instead of weak statements like the one I quoted.