Rust Port of TypeScript (Tsc)

(github.com)

25 points | by jcbhmr 53 minutes ago

6 comments

  • pvillano 4 minutes ago
    I have to wonder if LLM reimplementations verified against years of human tests will have holes where original authors thought that tests are not necessary and common sense is enough.

    I have to wonder this to preserve my ego as a human. I wonder have to this because I sure as hell am never going to go through all that code to check.

  • DanRosenwasser 21 minutes ago
    TypeScript team member here - this is impressive work, and it's honestly crazy that 3 of these ports have popped up in the last week! I'm currently AFK but we're hoping to learn more and we'll have more to say on this soon.
    • vaughands 16 minutes ago
      Kudos for keeping up! Golang seemed like a very reasonable choice when you ported there originally but the world is changing _fast_.
      • zdragnar 9 minutes ago
        Why do you think Golang is no longer a reasonable choice?
        • vaughands 0 minutes ago
          I suppose my comment sort of implies this. I think the naive knee jerk reaction is that if you can spit out perfect machine level code against a specification, then logically being closer to bare metal would help with performance. However, without knowing the details of how things worked it is though to say whether it is truly "reasonable" or not.

          But more importantly, the Typescript team themselves [1] picked Golang mostly out of ergonomics and ease of porting at the time. It is becoming more increasingly more to "taste" what ergonomics means. Notably, they did not pick it because they believed it to be the fastest option. But speed was on the mind, giving way to ergonomics and ease of porting. At least, this is my read.

          [1] https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411

        • spankalee 1 minute ago
          Rust is better at targeting WebAssembly
        • lifthrasiir 4 minutes ago
          Presumably because Rust is more suitable than Go in agentic coding? (I'm not sure, but that seems the purported answer.)
  • elcritch 17 minutes ago
    I'm curious how much unsafe this uses? Are these ports making idiomatic code or just using unsafe all over. There doesn't seem to be anything in the readme.
  • bitpush 7 minutes ago
    Is this going to be a serious project? No.

    Is this going to be maintained? Nope

    Nevertheless this and many others are showing what is possible. Much akin to how someone ports doom onto a microwave.

    We'll look back at this time with great fondness when we collectively discovered a whole new gear.

  • fwlr 25 minutes ago

        # “The Slop Line"
    
          Everything below this was written by my LLMs, not me.
    
    I really appreciate this convention, thank you.
  • ingen0s 28 minutes ago
    Wait - you spent north of $400,000?
    • sghiassy 8 minutes ago
      Assuming he used $400,000 in tokens, but used subs

      I wonder how much AI companies lost on this?

      Edit: not that I’m worried about them, I’m just curious

    • JacobAsmuth 15 minutes ago
      Most of it was wasted on OpenAI tokens. It actually cost them $24k USD according to the github description.
    • hedgehog 24 minutes ago
      Sibling dead comment said it already but that's likely an estimate of what it would cost via API and in practice it was a few hundred or thousand dollars of subscription fees.
    • colomo 25 minutes ago
      $420,000 worth of tokens, though I'm pretty sure he used subs.
    • spense 24 minutes ago
      > I did over $400,000 in API priced tokens

      i'd bet this is a few subscriptions over a few months rather than paying directly for tokens.

    • kyguy23 26 minutes ago
      [dead]