Microsoft is developing a new TypeScript compiler implementation called "tsc-native" built using native C++. This new compiler aims to drastically improve TypeScript compilation speed, potentially making it up to 10x faster than the existing JavaScript-based compiler. The project leverages the V8 JavaScript engine's TurboFan JIT compiler to optimize performance-critical parts of the type checking process. While still experimental, initial benchmarks show significant improvements, particularly for large projects. The team is actively working on refining the compiler and invites community feedback as they progress towards a production-ready release.
This Microsoft Developer Blog post announces a significant performance boost for TypeScript compilation through a new project called "TypeScript Native". The post highlights the inherent performance limitations of JavaScript, the language TypeScript currently compiles to, and posits that achieving substantial further speed improvements using JavaScript as an intermediary is unlikely. Therefore, the TypeScript team has embarked on exploring compiling TypeScript directly to native machine code, bypassing JavaScript entirely.
This new compilation strategy leverages the established and highly optimized LLVM compiler infrastructure. By emitting LLVM Intermediate Representation (LLVM IR) instead of JavaScript, TypeScript Native can harness the power of LLVM's optimizations for speed and potentially size reductions in the final compiled output. The blog post details that this approach could theoretically yield up to a 10x performance improvement in compilation times, although actual results are still preliminary and vary based on the specific codebase.
The project is still in its early stages, explicitly labeled as experimental. The current implementation focuses specifically on targeting Node.js using the Node-API (N-API). This allows the native compiled code to interact seamlessly with the Node.js runtime environment. Other platforms like the browser or standalone executables are not currently supported but represent potential future expansions of the project.
The post emphasizes that TypeScript Native aims to maintain full compatibility with existing TypeScript code. Developers shouldn't need to modify their code to leverage the benefits of native compilation. The goal is to provide a transparent performance upgrade without disrupting established workflows.
The post also underscores that this is an exploratory project and does not represent a finalized or guaranteed future direction for TypeScript. The team is actively soliciting feedback from the community to assess the viability and desirability of this native compilation approach. They are interested in understanding the potential use cases, performance gains observed in real-world projects, and any challenges or limitations encountered by developers experimenting with TypeScript Native. The blog post provides links and instructions for how interested developers can try out the experimental build and contribute their feedback to the project.
Summary of Comments ( 616 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43332830
Hacker News users discussed the potential impact of a native TypeScript compiler. Some expressed skepticism about the claimed 10x speed improvement, emphasizing the need for real-world benchmarks and noting that compile times aren't always the bottleneck in TypeScript development. Others questioned the long-term viability of the project given Microsoft's previous attempts at native compilation. Several commenters pointed out that JavaScript's dynamic nature presents inherent challenges for ahead-of-time compilation and optimization, and wondered how the project would address issues like runtime type checking and dynamic module loading. There was also interest in whether the native compiler would support features like decorators and reflection. Some users expressed hope that a faster compiler could enable new use cases for TypeScript, like scripting and game development.
The Hacker News post "A 10x Faster TypeScript" (linking to a Microsoft blog post about a native port of TypeScript) generated a moderate discussion with several interesting comments. Many commenters expressed cautious optimism about the project, acknowledging the potential performance benefits while also raising concerns and questions.
A recurring theme was skepticism about whether the claimed 10x speed improvement would translate to real-world scenarios. Some users pointed out that the benchmarks presented might not be representative of typical TypeScript projects. One commenter highlighted the importance of I/O operations in many workflows and questioned whether a native port would significantly impact those. Another user suggested that the speed improvements might be more pronounced in specific use cases, like build processes, but less noticeable during regular development.
Several commenters also discussed the trade-offs associated with a native implementation. One user raised the issue of platform compatibility, questioning whether the native port would be available on all operating systems supported by the existing TypeScript implementation. Concerns were also expressed about potential debugging challenges and the maturity of the native toolchain.
Some commenters expressed interest in the potential for improved IDE performance. They speculated that a native TypeScript compiler could lead to faster code completion and error checking within integrated development environments.
A few comments touched on the technical aspects of the native port. One user inquired about the memory management implications and whether the native implementation would introduce any garbage collection overhead. Another comment mentioned the possibility of using WebAssembly as an alternative approach to improving TypeScript performance.
While there was general excitement about the prospect of a faster TypeScript, the comments reflected a pragmatic outlook, with many users emphasizing the need for more information and real-world testing before drawing definitive conclusions. Notably, several commenters requested more detailed benchmarks and comparisons with alternative solutions. The overall sentiment was one of cautious interest and a desire to see how the project evolves.