assemblyscript VS zig

Incidentally, it’s also what AssemblyScript uses: https://github.com/AssemblyScript/assemblyscript/blob/main/s...

Use it as a Front-End for other low-level languages.

> MHO typescript could just cut loose from its javascript compatibility. Why not compile it to wasm instead of transpiling it to javascript?

Check out AssemblyScript which is exactly that:

https://www.assemblyscript.org/

If you're curious, check out AssemblyScript, that might describe better what needs to be cut from TypeScript to make it possible to be compiled to WASM.

This is kinda the idea behind AssemblyScript, but IIRC it's more of a low-level typescript-ish syntax for WebAssembly.

https://www.assemblyscript.org/ maybe, but I'm not sure exactly what you need.

Exactly, WASM was designed to be very very lightweight... you can put a lot of logic into a very small amount of WASM, but you need a good compiler to do that, or write WASM by hand to really feel the benefit. If you just compile Go to WASM, with its GC, runtime and stdlib included in the binary, yeah it's going to be pretty heavy... Rust doesn't have a runtime but as you said, for some reason, produces relatively large binaries (not the case only in WASM by the way). Probably, the best ways to create small WASM binaries is to compile from C or from a WASM-native language like AssemblySCript (https://www.assemblyscript.org).

Well we have all the new ECMA standards that will be introduced in 5 years now. It's looking more like Java actually. its accessor and typing patterns match it the most. TypeScript has had quite the profound influence over future ECMA design. There is a not so well known project called AssemblyScript which I think has a promising future. Since future ecma standards closely resembles it and TypeScripts popularity has exploded I have a feeling it may become a real standard as well.

If you can guarantee that Typescript type hints will always be followed, you can turn it into more optimised code. Unfortunately, this means you've got to break Javascript semantics, so this means creating a new language, but people have done it. For example, AssemblyScript is a language that is designed as a strict subset of Typescript that compiles directly down to WebAssembly instead of Javascript, producing much more efficient code (most of the time). The tradeoff is that it has some slightly different semantics to Javascript, which means your existing codebase — and most of the libraries you use — will probably require some adaption before running correctly in AssemblyScript.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/224

e.g.:

> > When debugging/prototyping, it's useful to comment out a line without having to refactor, e.g.

When writing code in a scripting language, sometimes you need that extra bit of performance (or maybe an async feature from Zig).

NodeJS is by no means a slow runtime, it wouldn’t be so popular if it was. But compared to Bun, it’s slow. Bun was built from the ground up with speed in mind, using both JavascriptCore and Zig. The Bun team spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make Bun fast, including lots of profiling, benchmarking, and optimizations.

ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart()

There are valid reasons to use APIs from NTDLL. Where I disagree with zig#1840 is the idea that it is always better to use NTDLL versions of API. Every other software ecosystem uses the standard Win32 APIs and diverging from that without a good reason seems like a good way to have unexpected behavior. One concrete example is most users and programmers expect Windows to redirect some file system paths when running on WOW64. But this is implemented in Kernel32, not ntdll.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/11894

Zig also has an IRC channel on libera (#zig) that is moderated by Andrew Kelley.[1]

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/wiki/Community

1. ZIG - $103,611

ESP32 and STM32 support is very welcome!

I have been following https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/5467 for a while and progress seemed to have slowed significantly

I have never used it directly, take what I say with a grain of salt.

As far as I know at least part of the idea was to eliminate the function coloring problem by letting the compiler do some nifty compile-time deductions. This had some issues (I don't know if this is still planned, it seems like the kind of thing that should not work in practice). Additionally, there were all sorts of hard technical issues with LLVM, debugging, etc.

I recommend checking the issue tracker, eg. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/6025

I personally don't understand the domain well enough at all, but honestly, I feel like (if possible) Zig should try to double down on its allocator approach.

Instead of trying to use some compile-time deduction magic explicitly pass around an "async runtime/executor" struct which you explicitly have to interact with. Why not?