This post outlines a vision for first-class WebAssembly support in Swift, enabling developers to compile Swift code directly to Wasm for use in web browsers and other Wasm environments. The proposal emphasizes seamless integration with existing JavaScript ecosystems, allowing bidirectional communication between Swift and JavaScript code. It also aims for near-native performance by leveraging Wasm's capabilities, and proposes tools and workflows to simplify the development process, such as automatic generation of JavaScript bindings for Swift code. The ultimate goal is to empower Swift developers to build high-performance web applications and leverage the growing Wasm ecosystem, while maintaining Swift's core values of safety, performance, and expressiveness.
Nango, a platform simplifying the development and management of product integrations, is seeking a senior full-stack engineer. The role involves building and maintaining core product features, including their SDKs and API. Ideal candidates have strong experience with TypeScript, React, Node.js, and PostgreSQL, as well as a passion for developer tools and a desire to work in a fast-paced startup environment. This remote position offers competitive salary and equity, with the opportunity to significantly impact a growing product.
Hacker News users discussed Nango's hiring post with a focus on the broad tech stack requirements. Several commenters expressed concern about the expectation for a single engineer to be proficient in frontend (React, Typescript), backend (Node.js, Python, Postgres), and DevOps (AWS, Terraform, Docker, Kubernetes). This sparked debate about the feasibility of finding such a "full-stack" engineer and whether this listing actually indicated a need for multiple specialized roles. Some speculated that Nango might be a small team with limited resources, necessitating a wider skill set per individual. Others suggested the listing could deter qualified candidates who specialize in specific areas. A few commenters also questioned the use of both Python and Node.js, wondering about the rationale behind this choice. The overall sentiment leaned towards skepticism about the practicality of the required skillset for a single role.
This post serves as a guide for Django developers looking to integrate modern JavaScript into their projects. It emphasizes moving away from relying solely on Django's templating system for dynamic behavior and embracing JavaScript's power for richer user experiences. The guide covers setting up a development environment using tools like webpack and npm, managing dependencies, and structuring JavaScript code effectively within a Django project. It introduces key concepts like modules, imports/exports, asynchronous programming with async/await, and using modern JavaScript frameworks like React, Vue, or Svelte for building dynamic front-end interfaces. Ultimately, the goal is to empower Django developers to create more complex and interactive web applications by leveraging the strengths of both Django and a modern JavaScript workflow.
HN commenters largely discussed their preferred frontend frameworks and tools for Django development. Several championed HTMX as a simpler alternative to heavier JavaScript frameworks like React, Vue, or Angular, praising its ability to enhance Django templates directly and minimize JavaScript's footprint. Others discussed integrating established frameworks like React or Vue with Django REST Framework for API-driven development, highlighting the flexibility and scalability of this approach. Some comments also touched upon using Alpine.js, another lightweight option, and the importance of considering project requirements when choosing a frontend approach. A few users cautioned against overusing JavaScript, emphasizing Django's strengths for server-rendered applications.
Summary of Comments ( 97 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43593596
Hacker News users discussed the potential and challenges of Swift for WebAssembly. Some expressed excitement about the prospect of using Swift for frontend development, highlighting its performance and type safety as advantages over JavaScript. Others were more cautious, pointing to the existing maturity of JavaScript and its ecosystem, and questioning whether Swift could gain significant traction. Concerns were raised about the size of Swift compiled output and the integration with existing JavaScript libraries and frameworks. The potential for full-stack Swift development and server-side applications with WebAssembly was also mentioned as a motivating factor. Several users suggested that prioritizing the developer experience and tooling would be crucial for adoption.
The Hacker News post "A Vision for WebAssembly Support in Swift," linking to a Swift forums discussion about bringing WebAssembly support to the Swift programming language, generated a moderate amount of discussion. Several commenters expressed enthusiasm and interest in the possibilities.
A significant thread focused on the potential benefits and drawbacks compared to existing solutions like JavaScript and TypeScript. One commenter questioned whether Swift offered enough advantages over TypeScript to justify the effort, pointing out that TypeScript already enjoys wide adoption and robust tooling for web development. Counterarguments highlighted Swift's performance potential, strong typing, and modern language features as reasons why it could be a compelling alternative. This back-and-forth explored the trade-offs between a potentially faster, more robust language like Swift and the established ecosystem of JavaScript/TypeScript.
Several commenters discussed the potential impact of WebAssembly support on Swift's overall adoption. Some speculated that it could broaden Swift's reach significantly, allowing it to break free from its primary association with Apple platforms and become a more general-purpose language. Others expressed skepticism, suggesting that the web development landscape is already crowded and that Swift might struggle to gain traction against established players.
Another recurring theme was the practical considerations of implementing WebAssembly support in Swift. Commenters discussed the challenges of garbage collection and interoperability with existing JavaScript code. The intricacies of efficiently bridging Swift's runtime environment with the browser's WebAssembly implementation were also touched upon.
Some commenters brought up specific use cases where Swift in the browser could be particularly advantageous, including computationally intensive tasks and porting existing Swift code to the web. The potential for improved performance in web applications was a recurring point of interest.
While there was general excitement about the prospect, many comments acknowledged the significant work involved and the need for careful consideration of the technical challenges. The overall sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with commenters expressing interest in seeing how the project evolves and whether it can deliver on its potential.