|
|
|
|
|
|
by wwwigham
3034 days ago
|
|
|
It's also probably not worth overtly begging the question of weather maintaining multiple languages within one project is worth the burden (seriously the full build for the `source-map` package is complex in comparison to the usual JS state of affairs if you want to experiment with the now-Rust bits), especially considering that at least part of the reason node became popular was to have one language for all needs, since focusing on that would invite that charged discussion. As a polyglot developer, I welcome all the mixing of the languages that wasm is bringing (certainly, it makes my flexible skillset more valuable); but honestly I do think we're leaving _something_ of the past homogeneity behind in doing so. (Was FFI quality all that was stopping us from mixing tons of languages in our non-browser projects before?) Circling back; both authors have their biases - it's best to read both articles skeptically, and IMO, take away the sage bits of advice they both echo and not anything about a specific technology: You should make the right choices for your project and your design, performance, and maintenance needs (including making your own evaluations), rather than jumping on some bandwagon without being properly informed. Also that profile-guided algorithmic improvements are usually the easiest place to make sweet, sweet perf gains (in any language) before you have to get into hairy maintainability trade-off decisions. |
|
|
You get dynamic weak typing making reuse more complex, unpredictable (nonlinear in performance with coffee changes) GC and JIT, weird type system. No error handling facilities in the language either.
Heck, compared to JS even modern Java (which shares the GC and JIT unpredictability) or C++ (incl. arcane syntax and less safety if you like living dangerously) seem easy to achieve predictable results with.
Rust takes more work you front - but not that much more.