This is the ActiveX/nacl/wasm/etc... argument recapitulated. For decades, people dithered about how to get fast code into browser environments such that it could be deployed safely.

Then the V8 team at Google just asked "well, what if we just made Javascript crazy fast instead?", and here we are. There's still room for native code in environments that don't map nicely to scalar scripting languages, but not a lot of room. Basically everyone is best served by ignoring that the problem ever existed.

It took the rendering side a little longer, but we're here nonetheless. There's still room for specialty apps with real need to exploit the hardware in ways not abstracted by the DOM (not 100% of it is games, but it's close to that). But for general "I need a GUI" problems? Yeah, just use Electron.

▲

mpweiher 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Except JavaScript isn't "crazy fast".

Not by a long shot.

How did Microsoft just make Typescript 10x faster? Oh right, by reimplementing it in Go.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/typescript-native-...

Please don't use Electron.

▲

nielsbot 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am going to miss being able to host TypeScript in a web view however.

▲

ajross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Meh. Flaming about this is so exhausting given that the war was already fought and we know who the winner is.

First, that's the typescript compiler, not typescript apps. And it was a ground-up rewrite effort (a very large one) with a specific eye toward improving the performance of the original, which was widely held to be sub-optimal for reasons entirely unrelated to implementation language. Suffice it to say that, hell no, you can't just transpile your code to Go and expect it to run faster. We all know it doesn't work like that.

But more broadly, landing with "Please don't use Electron" in the context of a comment about a MS product seems weird given the implementation framework of Microsoft's single most impactful new UI project of the last decade...

Just stop, basically. You lost. Use Electron. It works great and everyone else already does and proved you wrong.

▲

mpweiher 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> that's the typescript compiler, not typescript apps.

Of course it's the typescript compiler. What else is an implementation of "Typescript" that you could actually make faster? And how would Microsoft go to all Typescript users and re-implement their code in Go? How would that work?

But that doesn't change the simple fact that the Typescript compiler written in Typescript was too slow:

"As your codebase grows, so does the value of TypeScript itself, but in many cases TypeScript has not been able to scale up to the very largest codebases."

And to fix that performance problem, they had to reimplement Typescript (aka "the Typescript compiler") in Go. And that made it 10x faster.

And I am not sure you got "just transpire your code to Go" from, because I sure as hell didn't write it. And if you know it doesn't work like that, and I sure as hell didn't claim it works like that, why did you introduce this straw man?

This is all plain facts.

So yes: please stop the flaming. And please stop using Electron. Dennard scaling hasn't been with us for some time now.

▲

ajross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Again, meh. I'm just happy you've admitted that the idea that Go is 10x faster than V8 is bunk. Use what you like. But like I said everyone else is using Electron and winning. I don't make the rules, I'm just trying to explain them.

	▲	mpweiher an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> you've admitted that the idea that Go is 10x faster than V8 is bunk. I admitted nothing of the sort. Where did you get that from? On a comparable project, Microsoft determined that (a) the performance of the existing JS solution was practically insufficient (b) doing a rewrite while keeping JS would not be sufficient (c) rewriting the TS/JS compiler in Go yielded an empirical speed boost of 10x. And once again, I never claimed that "Go is 10x faster than V8". Please do refrain from these straw-men arguments, it is not conducive to a good discussion. In general, however, it is true that JIT compilers perform far less well on real-world production code than they do on small synthetic benchmarks, and so the 10x performance penalty that Microsoft found empirically is well within the range of what is observed elsewhere. Overview and links to research here: https://blog.metaobject.com/2015/10/jitterdammerung.html And remember: this was a response to this comment: "well, what if we just made Javascript crazy fast instead?", and here we are." JavaScript is not "crazy fast". Whether it won or is otherwise just the bees knees is irrelevant. It ain't "crazy fast".

▲

3836293648 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The typescript compiler is a typescript app. Or was, I guess