prepack VS rfcs

Hello HN,

I'm considering the development of a new programming language, drawing inspiration from Rust's strengths, with a focus on compiling to JavaScript. Here what I'm considering are some key features:

Strict Type System

Algebraic Data Types

*Unsafe Mode for JS/TS Interaction*: Facilitate direct interaction with existing JavaScript and TypeScript code.

No Null Usage: Option/Result patterns to avoid null.

Trait Implementation

Backend Development Priority: Initially targeting server-side applications.

Efficient Compiler Design: Including features like dead-code elimination and partial evaluation, similar to the approach of Prepack[0] (by Facebook).

I believe this approach could bring significant benefits, especially with recent advancements like Uint8Array and worker threads.

Would this be of interest to the community? Looking forward to your insights and discussion.

[0] https://github.com/facebookarchive/prepack

You can still do optimisations based purely on Javascript semantics. This is similar to the first example you give with dead function elimination, and many minifiers do some amount of this already, but you can take it to some extremes. One example of this is the (no longer maintained) Prepack project from Facebook. The core idea is to evaluate as much Javascript as possible at compile time, with the expectation that the result will probably be smaller (albeit less human readable) than the initial code.

It's no longer maintained, but I think prepack is roughly what you're looking for.

i've had code where it intentionally relied on the wrong behavior (missing hook dependencies) and when I fixed it it caused an unintentional bug (hook fired too often or sometimes infinite rerendering). Yes it is more of a bug in the code rather than React hooks issue but it is also really hard to fix/rewrite. while i'd love to jump on the hype train projects like https://github.com/facebookarchive/prepack and how concurrent mode is still experimental after five+ years doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

Some real examples in JavaScript can be seen on Prepack[2]. Consequently it is natural to wonder whether we can AOT compile components of client side frameworks, to achieve a reduction in the final bundle size, but also to increase application execution speed.

Less or more it’s likely to happen, and could have been expected 2-3 years ago.

Especially with https://github.com/facebook/prepack. They want to eventually ship pre-compiled components rather than React.createElement() to end user

https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/7324

I also think this is why facebook had been investing in `prepack` - https://github.com/facebook/prepack

Navigating to URLs with #hash-targets in them is not supported by most single-page-app frameworks due to the async rendering nature of modern web apps -- the browser can't scroll to a #hash-target on page load / transition because the element hasn't rendered yet. There is an issue about this for Ember here on the RFCs repo.

Ember.js development doesn’t stagnate. Progress is already being made for new improvements to the current component model. The RFC for first-class component templates has been accepted and merged in 2022 and will provide new benefits to Ember users. By first adopting Glimmer components, we’re prepared for what’s coming next.

yeah, I think that's being designed (for runtime).We have build-time efforts / validation already via official typescript support https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/748 with Glint: https://typed-ember.gitbook.io/glint/

During the 4.x series, we aim to finish the work to officially support TypeScript.

The latest versions of Ember.js (Octane) have built-in decorator support and they're discussed in the RFC:

https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/blob/master/text/0408-decora...

https://guides.emberjs.com/release/in-depth-topics/native-cl...

At ok, legit. that's like a modifier from ember.

have you seen: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/779? I think that addresses the "where does this come from?" in completion.

What I like about Ember is that it gives a lot of rigid structure that, at least at one point, made it comparatively easy to work on multiple Ember based projects and be productive sooner.

As you've pointed out, a problem with that project is that there's a ton of intimate knowledge for how things work under the hood or why things are the way they are. They also seem to oscillate between opting for simplicity and opting for complexity and magic.

One example would be the latest version of Ember which doesn't even ship with `@ember/render-modifiers` by default despite how everyone will end up installing it anyway because it's necessary; they were talking about providing an alternative based on the actor model, despite modifiers being far easier to understand, somehow they are still wrong:

> Either way, we recommend using these modifiers with caution. They are very useful for quickly bridging the gap between classic components and Glimmer components, but they are still generally an anti-pattern.

https://github.com/emberjs/ember-render-modifiers

Why on earth did they reinvent components and ship them without providing the supposedly correct way of interacting with their lifecycle? You actually have to install a separate add-on to develop a production-ready app with Ember, which completely flies in the face of the idea that you can run `ember new` and have pretty much everything you need.

Strangely (an thankfully), the RFC for the needlessly complicated alternative for lifecycle interaction is effectively stalled:

https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/567

By their own language, the only official way to interact with component/element lifecycle is an antipattern.

/rant