5 ms·
I think that quote isn't about JS performance but maintaining software written in JS.
by jlelse 7y ago
I think that quote isn't about JS performance but maintaining software written in JS.
- austincheney 7y agoAgain, that goes to the quality of product/people in a given instance. I have done this long enough to fully appreciate that when it comes to fucking up software on the web people will find a way whether it’s for some poorly conceived developer motivation or media/marketing motivation.
- bsaul 7y agoi think the original post just mentionned « costly ». It didn’t say it was impossible to mess things up even with rust. Just that it removes the cost of checking types are still matching after a refactoring or a dependency update.
- The_rationalist 7y agoTypescript allow that too.
- rienbdj 7y agoThis a true, but the advantage is probably more than offset by the relative cost of JS vs Rust developers. You can also add Flow types. A single threaded environment does not yield the usual advantages of the Rust borrow checker.
- zozbot234 7y ago> the relative cost of JS vs Rust developers I.e. pay peanuts, get code monkeys? > A single threaded environment does not yield the usual advantages of the Rust borrow checker. This is quite wrong - reference invalidation and async code that's being scheduled within a single thread are two common examples where it matters a lot.
- Eikon 7y agoLots of boilerplate and error-prone code can also be avoided by implementing `drop` on relevant types, this can yield to pretty interesting APIs in the web space.
- steveklabnik 7y agoThe borrow checker still helps quite a bit with a single thread: http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem-with-shared-mutability/ http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem-wit...