• TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    It does, the “compiler” adds a bunch of extra garbage for extra safety that really does have an impact.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      I thought the idea of TS is that it strongly types everything so that the JS interpreter doesn’t waste all of its time trying to figure out the best way to store a variable in RAM.

      • Feyd@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        TS is compiled to JS, so the JS interpreter isn’t privy to the type information. TS is basically a robust static analysis tool

      • Colloidal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        The code is ultimately ran in a JS interpreter. AFAIK TS transpiles into JS, there’s no TS specific interpreter. But such a huge difference is unexpected to me.

        • TCB13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Its really not, have you noticed how an enum is transpiled? you end up with a function… a lot of other things follow the same pattern.

          • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            No they don’t. Enums are actually unique in being the only Typescript feature that requires code gen, and they consider that to have been a mistake.

            In any case that’s not the cause of the difference here.

            • TCB13@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              This isn’t true, there are other features that “emit code”, that includes: namespaces, decorators and some cases even async / await (when targeting ES5 or ES6).

              • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                23 hours ago

                Ah yeah I forgot about namespaces. I don’t think they’re a popular feature.

                The other two only generate code for backwards compatibility. When targeting the latest JavaScript versions they don’t generate anything.

                Ok decorators are technically still only a proposal so they’re slightly jumping the gun there, but the point remains.

    • mbtrhcs@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Only if you choose a lower language level as the target. Given these results I suspect the researchers had it output JS for something like ES5, meaning a bunch of polyfills for old browsers that they didn’t include in the JS-native implementation…

        • mbtrhcs@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah sure, you found the one notorious TypeScript feature that actually emits code, but a) this feature is recommended against and not used much to my knowledge and, more importantly, b) you cannot tell me that you genuinely believe the use of TypeScript enums – which generate extra function calls for a very limited number of operations – will 5x the energy consumption of the entire program.

          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            This isn’t true, there are other features that “emit code”, that includes: namespaces, decorators and some cases even async / await (when targeting ES5 or ES6).