8 comments

  • sheept 1 hour ago
    One of the strengths of TypeScript besides its expressiveness is that it's compatible with the massive npm ecosystem. Most packages only ship untyped JavaScript with type declarations defining the interface,[0] so realistically you'd still need a JavaScript engine if you use any packages.

    But if you're starting from scratch and know you won't be using any npm packages, you might as well use AssemblyScript.[2]

    [0]: Publishing packages in TypeScript is explicitly discouraged by Node[1]. TypeScript isn't backwards compatible even in minor releases, and its compiler settings aren't portable for packages.

    [1]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/api/typescript....

    [2]: https://www.assemblyscript.org/

    • simonw 56 minutes ago
      > so realistically you'd still need a JavaScript engine if you use any packages.

      Looks like Scriptc's solution to that problem is that it can optionally bundle a 620KB quickjs-ng JavaScript engine if you have dependencies that need to be executed that way.

    • bbor 47 minutes ago
      Those are good reasons to publish untyped libraries as a rule, sure. But the contention that those reasons outweigh the value of types kinda boggles the mind, ngl!
  • acmnrs 1 hour ago
    Porforr<https://porffor.dev> has been working towards the same goal for a while. The creator, CanadaHonk<https://honk.foo>, is extremely talented and the project still only passes ~68% of Test262. I'm more than a little suspicious of how Vercel has made so much progress so fast, unless I'm misunderstanding the scope of this project.
    • simonw 1 hour ago
      > I'm more than a little suspicious of how Vercel has made so much progress so fast

      Coding agents. They landed 918,000 lines of code in a single week: https://github.com/vercel-labs/scriptc/graphs/contributors?s...

      • acmnrs 1 hour ago
        That makes sense. It also seems like this uses a lot more dependencies and tiers of compilation whereas Porforr is trying to do everything from scratch.
      • pizlonator 50 minutes ago
        That explains why:

        - the architecture is idiotic.

        - they have zero credible perf numbers.

        I plan to benchmark it using generally accepted methods.

        Porffor makes careful trade offs that make sense and is benchmarked in a way that I can believe.

        (Source: I make dynamic languages fast for a living)

        • bbor 44 minutes ago
          Putting aside the whole “team of professionals putting out a product vs solo dev fine tuning their opus” of it all:

          Can you clarify what about the architecture is ‘idiotic’? Not trying to catch you or demand a defense, just looking for a vague description. I don’t even know how to start examining the architecture of something like this.

          • pizlonator 38 minutes ago
            Yeah

            - using quickjs at all in a thing that needs perf. Quickjs is hilariously slow. Midwits use it because it has “quick” in the name.

            - using floats for numbers and deferring int optimizations for later. Inferring ints is like half the problem of fast JS.

            - rejecting inadequately annotated or too dynamic code without a whole heck of a lot of self-reflection about how unlikely that is to work out.

            The observation that languages that are even slightly dynamic need dynamic JIT opts is very old; folks figured that out in the 80s.

            This project reeks of weapons grade AI psychosis

            • simonw 31 minutes ago
              As far as I can tell they pull in QuickJS (actually quickjs-ng) only in the case where the program has untyped dependencies that still need to be run by an interpreter - and they chose that library because it's pretty small (620KB). Did I miss something, are they using it outside of that purpose?
              • pizlonator 10 minutes ago
                They will have untyped dependencies. That’s how the TS/JS ecosystem works.

                Note that “untyped dependency” means any code that says `any`.

                • simonw 8 minutes ago
                  They won't have untyped dependencies for situations where someone used Scriptc as a way to build a fast binary executable for some custom-written TypeScript, which was the first use-case that came to mind for me.

                  Being able to build small, fast binaries without writing them in C or Rust - if you're already fluent in TypeScript - seems like a valuable capability.

                  • vips7L 1 minute ago
                    So like less than 1% of the time? What part of the JS ecosystem doesn’t depend on a mountain of untyped dependencies?
            • anematode 6 minutes ago
              > deferring int optimizations for later

              This part made me laugh out loud

            • Tadpole9181 21 minutes ago
              So you don't actually have real criticisms of the architecture at all...?
  • satvikpendem 1 hour ago
    A lot of people are trying this now with AI, a native TypeScript compiler, for example https://github.com/PerryTS/pry. It's a compelling value proposition, TypeScript is already well typed and barring a few cases it can be turned into machine code without a JS runtime.
  • chilipepperhott 55 minutes ago
    It's difficult to ignore how the README is filled with Claudisms.
  • aabhay 1 hour ago
    178kb?! What are you putting in there, a JVM?
  • xiaodai 40 minutes ago
    how can you compile it if javascript is a valid subset of typescript? confused.
    • panzi 12 minutes ago
      Either it is only accepting a subset of TypeScript, or it is still interpreting the parts that don't have enough types. Given other comments here it sounds like the later.
  • casper14 1 hour ago
    I like the idea.