3 ms·

I imagine this type of approach will replace TypeScript in the long run. Instead of some wonky half-assed typed language that's chosen for running on a server a

I imagine this type of approach will replace TypeScript in the long run. Instead of some wonky half-assed typed language that's chosen for running on a server and client, you can compile Java to wasm that can run on the server and client.

steve76 6y ago
And then you can compile Scala to Java to webasm to run on Deno to run on Rust to run on LXC to run on Hypervisor. No need to worry about transpilers.
bastawhiz 6y ago
That's a bit of a stretch. What makes you think WASM is going to give developers an appetite for statically typed languages? If anything, WASM opens the door to Python, Lua, and plenty of other languages that are not statically typed to run (performantly!) in places where only JavaScript has historically been practical.
- brabel 6y ago
  At the moment, WASM is far from ideal to run anything that requires a GC as there's no GC in WASM yet and it seems it will take a long time for it to finally get one. So even running Java or Go in WASM is not easy at all (though there are compilers already - but they won't just run any program, they are extremely limited)... now, to run dynamic languages on top of a typed bytecode without GC... that has to be a huge challenge! Why do you think Python/Lua can run perfomantly on WASM?
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > What makes you think WASM is going to give developers an appetite for statically typed languages? Well, they did say it will give TypeScript developers better alternatives. Presumably, if you're using TypeScript, you already had an appetite for statically typed languages.
  - bastawhiz 6y ago
    I suppose it depends on what problem you use TypeScript to solve. If you're writing a complicated and self-contained system, sure, I can see the appeal of "upgrading" to Java. If you're trying to enforce contracts between different codebases/libraries/etc., WASM hardly provides a better alternative: integrating with other libraries—especially JS ones—or even the DOM is non-trivial. Which is to say, using TypeScript as a quality of life improvement to provide autocomplete and checking for easily-detectable bugs is not going to lend itself well to being replaced with WASM. If the goal is to write a 100% typed codebase (e.g., having a complex, entirely self-contained tool that runs in multiple environments), you will have better luck. But I suspect the number of folks that could benefit from that are fairly low, because it assumes that JavaScript is the bottleneck for correctness and performance. But if the real reason why you're using TypeScript is that JavaScript was your only choice and you like the increase in safety, having a more appropriate language could be an even more attractive option.
vijaybritto 6y ago
But the most likely scenario imo is that Typescript would eventually start compiling to wasm directly!

steve76 6y ago

And then you can compile Scala to Java to webasm to run on Deno to run on Rust to run on LXC to run on Hypervisor. No need to worry about transpilers.

bastawhiz 6y ago

That's a bit of a stretch. What makes you think WASM is going to give developers an appetite for statically typed languages? If anything, WASM opens the door to Python, Lua, and plenty of other languages that are not statically typed to run (performantly!) in places where only JavaScript has historically been practical.

brabel 6y ago
At the moment, WASM is far from ideal to run anything that requires a GC as there's no GC in WASM yet and it seems it will take a long time for it to finally get one. So even running Java or Go in WASM is not easy at all (though there are compilers already - but they won't just run any program, they are extremely limited)... now, to run dynamic languages on top of a typed bytecode without GC... that has to be a huge challenge! Why do you think Python/Lua can run perfomantly on WASM?
wtetzner 6y ago
> What makes you think WASM is going to give developers an appetite for statically typed languages? Well, they did say it will give TypeScript developers better alternatives. Presumably, if you're using TypeScript, you already had an appetite for statically typed languages.
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  I suppose it depends on what problem you use TypeScript to solve. If you're writing a complicated and self-contained system, sure, I can see the appeal of "upgrading" to Java. If you're trying to enforce contracts between different codebases/libraries/etc., WASM hardly provides a better alternative: integrating with other libraries—especially JS ones—or even the DOM is non-trivial. Which is to say, using TypeScript as a quality of life improvement to provide autocomplete and checking for easily-detectable bugs is not going to lend itself well to being replaced with WASM. If the goal is to write a 100% typed codebase (e.g., having a complex, entirely self-contained tool that runs in multiple environments), you will have better luck. But I suspect the number of folks that could benefit from that are fairly low, because it assumes that JavaScript is the bottleneck for correctness and performance. But if the real reason why you're using TypeScript is that JavaScript was your only choice and you like the increase in safety, having a more appropriate language could be an even more attractive option.

vijaybritto 6y ago

But the most likely scenario imo is that Typescript would eventually start compiling to wasm directly!