design VS TypeScript

With WebAssembly we can compile our C++ codebase into a wasm module for the browser. So when you look at a SciChart.js chart you're actually seeing our C++ graphics engine wrapped for JavaScript.

I should add, however, that the unmentioned elephant in the room is V8 JIT (TurboFan), which simply doesn't handle irreducible control flow. While there are some valid theoretical arguments around the current arrangement in Wasm, looking at the history of the associated discussions makes it pretty obvious that having V8 support Wasm and generate fast code similar to what it can do for asm.js was an overriding concern in many cases. And Google straight up said that if Wasm has ICF, they will not bother supporting such cases, so it will be done by a much slower fallback:

https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/796#issuecommen...

AFAIK no other Wasm implementation has the same constraint - the rest generally tend to desugar everything to jumps and then proceed from there. So this is, at least to some extent, yet another case of a large company effectively forcing an open standard to be more convenient for them specifically.

https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/1397

> Currently allocating more than ~300MB of memory is not reliable on Chrome on Android without resorting to Chrome-specific workarounds, nor in Safari on iOS.

That's about allocating CPU memory but the GPU memory situation is similar.

As far as I can tell (5 minutes of internet research) this was to allow easier compilation to JavaScript as a fallback in the days when WASM wasn't widely supported.

"Please add goto" issue has been open since 2016:

https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/796

Most interesting comment:

> The upcoming Go 1.11 release will have experimental support for WebAssembly. This will include full support for all of Go's features, including goroutines, channels, etc. However, the performance of the generated WebAssembly is currently not that good.

> This is mainly because of the missing goto instruction. Without the goto instruction we had to resort to using a toplevel loop and jump table in every function. Using the relooper algorithm is not an option for us, because when switching between goroutines we need to be able to resume execution at different points of a function. The relooper can not help with this, only a goto instruction can.

> It is awesome that WebAssembly got to the point where it can support a language like Go. But to be truly the assembly of the web, WebAssembly should be equally powerful as other assembly languages. Go has an advanced compiler which is able to emit very efficient assembly for a number of other platforms. This is why I would like to argue that it is mainly a limitation of WebAssembly and not of the Go compiler that it is not possible to also use this compiler to emit efficient assembly for the web.

^ https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/796#issuecommen...

When I implemented a WASM compiler, the only source of float-based non-determinism I found was in the exact byte representation of NaN. Floating point math is deterministic. See https://webassembly.org/docs/faq/#why-is-there-no-fast-math-... and https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/main/Nondetermini....

> To work with GC, you need some way to track if the GC'd object is accessible in WASM itself.

I've never heard of a GC with that kind of API. Usually any native code that holds a GC reference would either mark that reference as a root explicitly (eg. https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/1459) or ensure that it can be traced from a parent object. Either way, this should prevent collection of the object. I agree that explicitly checking whether a GC'd object has been freed would not make any sense.

> The reason why you probably need a custom string type is so you can actually embed string literals without relying on interop with the environment.

WASM already has ways of embedding flat string data. This can be materialized into GC/heap objects at module startup. This must happen in some form anyway, as all GC-able objects must be registered with the GC upon creation, for them to be discoverable as candidates for collection.

Overall I still don't understand the issue. There is so much prior art for these patterns in native extensions for Python, PHP, Ruby, etc.

Giving you a buffer that grows is the allocation approach I am talking about. This is not how your OS works. Your OS itself works with an allocator that does a pretty good job making sure that your memory ends up not fragmented. Because WASM is in between, the OS is not in control of the memory, and instead the browser is. The browser implementation of "bring your own allocator" is cute but realistically just a waste of time for everybody who wants to deploy a wasm app because whatever allocator you bring is crippled by the overarching allocator of the browser messing everything up.

It seems like the vendors are recognizing this though, with firefox now having a discard function aparently!

https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/1397

Scientific performance critical code isn't written in Python, it is written in C/C++ which is used by Python. Python in ML usually merely describes the calculation not unlike React describes the DOM that should be displayed in the browser.

JavaScript was never really known for admin or file manipulation (Perl replacement), so that was what probably established the dominant ecosystem for Python. I also don't think the runtime overhead is applicable due to native C/C++ part, and download time doesn't have to be bad since modules can be split just like in JavaScript ecosystem today. For an AI app, the model inference weights might be larger than the compiled WASM code itself. However, I'd agree with you that porting legacy apps might not be possible without something close to a rewrite.

There is a reasonable chance that once WASM GC is implemented, then direct DOM access will be provided [1], which I believe could pretty much halt interest in new JavaScript development for web frameworks overnight. WASM is the reincarnation of the Java Applet, but better. And a more typed language like Go or Dart could become the most widely used programming language. Either compile it to WASM as plugin for something like the browser, compile to JavaScript for "legacy browsers", or to native code for a standalone app. There are probably a handful of developers already assuming this and trying to write a version of React running in WASM already.

[1] https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/main/Web.md#gc

Regular expressions are part of the language, so it's not so unreasonable that TypeScript should parse them and take their semantics into account. Indeed, TypeScript 5.5 will include [new support for syntax checking of regular expressions](https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/55600), and presumably they'll eventually be able to solve the problem the GP highlighted on top of those foundations.

Dedicated syntax for creating unique subsets of a type that denote a particular refinement is a longstanding ask[2] - and very useful, we've experimented with implementations.[3]

I don't think it has any relation to runtime type checking at all. It's refinement types, [4] or newtypes[5] depending on the details and how you shape it.

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/main/src/compil...

GitHub | Website

Learning Curve and Developer Tooling sCrypt is an embedded Domain Specific Language (eDSL) based on TypeScript. It is strictly a subset of TypeScript, so all sCrypt code is valid TypeScript. TypeScript is chosen as the host language because it provides an easy, familiar language (JavaScript), but with type safety. There’s an abundance of learning materials available for TypeScript and thus sCrypt, including online tutorials, courses, documentation, and community support. This makes it relatively easy for beginners to start learning. It also has a vast ecosystem with numerous libraries and frameworks (e.g., React, Angular, Vue) that can simplify development and integration with Web2 applications.

As a JavaScript or TypeScript developer, you might have come across the terms type and interface when working with complex data structures or defining custom types. While both serve similar purposes, they have distinct characteristics that influence when to use them. In this blog post, we'll delve into the differences between types and interfaces in TypeScript, providing examples to aid your understanding.

TypeScript helps you in many ways in the context of a JavaScript app. It makes it easier to consume interfaces of any type.

In this guide, we'll be extracting information from Amazon product pages using the power of TypeScript in combination with the Cheerio and Crawlee libraries. We'll explore how to retrieve and extract detailed product data such as titles, prices, image URLs, and more from Amazon's vast marketplace. We'll also discuss handling potential blocking issues that may arise during the scraping process.

TypeScript

Familiarity with TypeScript, React and Next.js