It's exciting to see the speed gains. I use TypeScript every day on a large codebase, and it is too slow to run locally.
I don't love this change though:
> However, frontier AI models can now do large-scale ports almost independently in a matter of days
> I wrote zero code. Not "barely any". Zero
So we are going to move from a carefully handwritten port to an entirely AI-generated port. I know this is the way the industry is headed, I use coding agents a ton. But I still review their output because they often don't make sound architectural decisions. Maybe this is a sign that my way of working is going away. I'm not sure how to justify that kind of time spent when someone can do the same thing in a matter of days with barely any effort.
I am working on my own language now, I've spent most of this year on it. The idea that someone could just replace it in a matter of days is wild. Wonder how the TS team at Microsoft feels about this.
If TypeScript has the integration testing framework in place to verify that the compiler actually works (and it should) - then, presumably, you should be able to swap in a Chinese Room black-box and - at least - know that it works.
You do have to be worried that it's possibly installing trojan horses on your computer while compiling code, or any other number of unwanted side effects.
But you can and should be able to have integration testing in place to know that a compiler - at a minimum - actually works.
> The idea that someone could just replace it in a matter of days is wild.
They didn’t design a language that millions of human engineers enjoy (?, lol) using. They took an existing codebase and ported it. Yes, the porting part is easier now but only because another project and spec exist.
I'm tired of all the new tools that comes out every day, but I would say, this is basically the Vite team and if they implement it with Vite+, then I'm all for it, less decisions about tooling to be made, one config file, etc.
I use oxc tooling and it's great to see the rust rewrite singularity in action and get to ride the fastest horses, but I would like that they made a branch for 7.2 as experiment to see how it compares. Maybe this ends in a win for Microsoft, they could cut operating expenses by keeping just Anders Hejlsberg in a hammock reciting invariants to claudpilot.
You already can run the Go tsc in WASM using mature tools; but it further amplifies the memory and performance difference between the Rust version (which maps more cleanly onto WASM's design).
1. Porting typescript is made easier by the enormous test suite they can copy for verification.
2. They're doing this for workers, and since they host using a systems-level language, there's a much higher potential for CPU and memory savings (an order of magnitude on this first pass, apparently), driving their costs down.
Wasm comes with a garbage collector though, no? So a garbage collected language that offloads all memory management to the runtime would actually be better than one that ignored the platform and does its own stuff.
Yes, and when you ship a Go WASM package it is already included. But it has a certain impedence mismatch with WASM since it is rolling its own stuff that WASM can't see, I believe the performance is a bit less good than it could be, and it results in very large WASM packages for small amounts of code.
Since a typescript compiler isn't "a small amount of code", you'd have to see specific numbers on the final WASM assembly size to know how relevant that is. I'd expect well-written Rust code to beat well-written Go code on final assembly size by some amount, which may or may not be relevant to any particular use case (since in a lot of cases one "couple dozen megabytes" is much the same as another when it really gets down to it, it's not like Go is going to be emitting gigabytes to Rust's hundreds of kilobytes or something). However I can't judge what AI-written Rust code versus well-written Go code would come out as. AI is not terribly good at being concise.
Obligatory reminder that their needs from a TS compiler are extremely different from a regular web developers iteration cycle. They are trying to run millions of these while saving on costs.
You almost definitely don't need to immediately plan to switch.
It's exciting to see the speed gains. I use TypeScript every day on a large codebase, and it is too slow to run locally. I don't love this change though:
> However, frontier AI models can now do large-scale ports almost independently in a matter of days
> I wrote zero code. Not "barely any". Zero
So we are going to move from a carefully handwritten port to an entirely AI-generated port. I know this is the way the industry is headed, I use coding agents a ton. But I still review their output because they often don't make sound architectural decisions. Maybe this is a sign that my way of working is going away. I'm not sure how to justify that kind of time spent when someone can do the same thing in a matter of days with barely any effort.
I am working on my own language now, I've spent most of this year on it. The idea that someone could just replace it in a matter of days is wild. Wonder how the TS team at Microsoft feels about this.
If TypeScript has the integration testing framework in place to verify that the compiler actually works (and it should) - then, presumably, you should be able to swap in a Chinese Room black-box and - at least - know that it works.
You do have to be worried that it's possibly installing trojan horses on your computer while compiling code, or any other number of unwanted side effects.
But you can and should be able to have integration testing in place to know that a compiler - at a minimum - actually works.
> The idea that someone could just replace it in a matter of days is wild.
They didn’t design a language that millions of human engineers enjoy (?, lol) using. They took an existing codebase and ported it. Yes, the porting part is easier now but only because another project and spec exist.
That's fair, I was thinking the same – porting must be simpler, especially if there's already a substantial test suite
I'm tired of all the new tools that comes out every day, but I would say, this is basically the Vite team and if they implement it with Vite+, then I'm all for it, less decisions about tooling to be made, one config file, etc.
I use oxc tooling and it's great to see the rust rewrite singularity in action and get to ride the fastest horses, but I would like that they made a branch for 7.2 as experiment to see how it compares. Maybe this ends in a win for Microsoft, they could cut operating expenses by keeping just Anders Hejlsberg in a hammock reciting invariants to claudpilot.
So that's three now. This, tsgo-rs, and `bun check`
They mention in the post they are working with Theo to absorb tsgo-rs into tsrs.
Nice. I missed that. This is good news.
Y'all building the same thing.
According to voidzero, this port is up to 8x faster than TS 7.0 & ~70% less memory.
Microsoft should seriously consider porting typescript to rust at this point
I wonder how more frustrating is it to work on the compiler in rust vs go.
IIRC at the time of the port to go they wanted fast test and compile time, of course it's a different era now.
Idk. Apart from the fact that benchmarks are generally of questionable value, what's the point? Is the TS compiler unbearably slow?
They say the point in the article - WASM
(Not sure if this could be a genuine remark or is more of a joke, but)
Why not vibecode a Go -> WASM cross-compiler, then?
You already can run the Go tsc in WASM using mature tools; but it further amplifies the memory and performance difference between the Rust version (which maps more cleanly onto WASM's design).
1. Porting typescript is made easier by the enormous test suite they can copy for verification.
2. They're doing this for workers, and since they host using a systems-level language, there's a much higher potential for CPU and memory savings (an order of magnitude on this first pass, apparently), driving their costs down.
Go needs a garbage collector while rust doesn’t.
Wasm comes with a garbage collector though, no? So a garbage collected language that offloads all memory management to the runtime would actually be better than one that ignored the platform and does its own stuff.
Apparently there were some design issues (raised and ignored) that made it unusable for many languages.
Yes, of course, but couldn’t you have/make one in WASM too? (I have no clue how memory is allocated there)
Yes, and when you ship a Go WASM package it is already included. But it has a certain impedence mismatch with WASM since it is rolling its own stuff that WASM can't see, I believe the performance is a bit less good than it could be, and it results in very large WASM packages for small amounts of code.
Since a typescript compiler isn't "a small amount of code", you'd have to see specific numbers on the final WASM assembly size to know how relevant that is. I'd expect well-written Rust code to beat well-written Go code on final assembly size by some amount, which may or may not be relevant to any particular use case (since in a lot of cases one "couple dozen megabytes" is much the same as another when it really gets down to it, it's not like Go is going to be emitting gigabytes to Rust's hundreds of kilobytes or something). However I can't judge what AI-written Rust code versus well-written Go code would come out as. AI is not terribly good at being concise.
The success of "modern" CLI tools written in Rust (uv, oxlint, turbopack) show there's a clear demand for faster tools in general.
Also, faster feedback loop is crucial for AIs, so I guess this makes sense.
What they show is that JavaScript should never have left the browser into the backend.
Don't rewrite into Rust, Go, Java, .NET, Zig, Odin, whatever.
Start with them directly.
Faster feedback loops almost always deliver improvements elsewhere.
Obligatory reminder that their needs from a TS compiler are extremely different from a regular web developers iteration cycle. They are trying to run millions of these while saving on costs.
You almost definitely don't need to immediately plan to switch.
please support TSRX (https://github.com/tsrx-org/tsrx)
These days the trend seems to be rewriting everything in Rust.
I'm staying stainless
I thought its TS port of theo
Theo's port is tsc-rs[0] as reference, and is significantly slower and uses more memory than this new version.
[0] https://github.com/pingdotgg/ts-rust
A new one but they're merging it with Theo's.