You don't have to be an expert in TypeScript to know that the TypeScript compiler just strips the types from the code and leaves the rest as-is (if you are targeting a somewhat modern JS engine). The runtime performance of a TypeScript program is the same as that of the equivalent JavaScript program.
But of course, a TypeScript program could be much slower than a different JavaScript program, as is probably happening in this case.
I agree with others that the difference in results between JavaScript and TypeScript makes the quality of this paper highly suspect.
It isn't. Typescript is basically javascript with type annotations. There is a shorthand for class member initialisation and for defining enums, but that's basically it. There are no extra safety checks inserted. You get compile-time typechecking and nothing else.
We are talking about the benchmark game here. The code for different languages was written by different programmers. For some languages, there were multiple implementations and many iterations. In this case, the researchers used the fastest one.
Some of the implementations are extremely optimized and took a lot of effort. Some implementations are not. So you might be comparing highly optimized JavaScript code with naive, below-average TypeScript code. You cannot compare those.
It would be much better if they used the same level of optimization for each language, but they didn't. Furthermore it is called a "Game" (it used to be called a "Shoot-out") because you shouldn't take it seriously. So it shouldn't be the basis of serious research.
Well done, clear, concise and easily verifiable answer to OP's question and ... no response haha.
I'm also just confused by the implication behind their question, is the idea that GPT-5.4 Thinking has never been confidently wrong, ever, about anything?
We explicitly point out in the release notes that TypeScript users should not upgrade yet. Chalk v4 has been stable for years and you can continue to use that if you cannot use ESM.
I think this is quite a serious issue which has been open for almost a year. I don't understand why there hasn't been a reaction from the npm developers on the issue (as far as I can see). npm 8.3.1 (the current version) is still vulnerable.
It might not be directly exploitable but it can leave you open for all kinds of security and/or stability issues. It is also a regression from npm 6.
(BTW: It took me a while to figure out that if you close the dialog window, you can click the buttons at the bottom for more demo's.)
Unfortunately they are only using the webkit-prefixed properties, so their demo doesn't work in Firefox or IE. I'm guessing they wrote their demo a couple of years ago and never updated it.
There are some problems with CSS3 3d-transforms:
1) Text looks blurry, just look at the dialog window in the demo.
2) Some mobile devices (e.g. old iPads) have limited GPU memory. If you use too much (by setting 3d-transforms on large surfaces), the browser (or your app) will crash.
By the way, the answer to the question in the title is: No. And if they don't open source their code, they won't get a lot of traction.
The docs state that they refer to the 0.9 version, while development is going on in the 0.11 branch, so the docs might be more of less out of date.
It seems that they have already implemented a large part of the Heroku infrastructure, including service discovery, auto balancing, cross-language events (using ZeroMQ) and that they are using it in production. All in all, an impressive feat!
It would be interesting to hear if anyone has experience running/using this outside of Yandex. The source code seems well written, though comments are quite sparse.
As Lazare remarked, it seems to directly compete with flynn.io. It is good to see that different high-level platforms are created based on docker. But it would be nice if these platforms would consist of modules (for example service discovery or messaging) that can be used without using the whole kitchen-sink. I am not sure if this is possible with cocaine.
BTW, the repo cocaine-core is quite a bit older (since 2011) than docker (since early 2013?). The docker-core readme states that docker support is "on it's way" so it is not clear how mature this is.
P.S. As adults and hackers, can we look beyond the name at the technology presented here?
I work for dotCloud (the company which started Docker), and I was at YaC (Yandex tech conference; the equivalent of Google I/O in Eastern Europe, if you will), and had the opportunity to discuss this with the Yandex team. Here are some extra info (that can easily be found on the web, so nothing sensitive here)
- They released the Docker plugin shortly before the conference [1]
- Yandex uses a distributed storage system called Elliptics [2] in many places, and they implemented an Elliptics backend for the Docker registry (the code is out there somewhere. They contributed the Elliptics backend to the Docker registry repo a couple of days ago [3].
- Cocaine is used to power various things inside Yandex, like the Yandex.Browser backend. This backend can sustain very high loads (10-100k req/s). I discussed with their Ops team, since they had specific questions about how to identify (and remove) potential performance bottlenecks in Docker networking stack. (Good news: you can achieve native network performance within containers with zero overhead!)
I'm considering writing Dockerfiles for Elliptics and Cocaine (as soon as I can find some spare time to do so...) but I would also be happy to help if other people want to do that (I'm actively monitoring the docker-user mailing list [4] so don't hesitate to get in touch through here).
This is very impressive. The code is very readable, even the asm.js based code (which is probably written by hand). You can find the CPU code in js/worker/cpu.
On Chrome I get about 30 MIPS while running scummvm. On Firefox I get about 6 MIPS on the standard core and about 40 MIPS on the asm.js core.
I must say that I am impressed by Chrome performance on the standard core. However, sometime Chrome drops to about 6 MIPS for no discernible reason.
Yes, the asm.js code is written by hand. Took around one day.
What happened with Firefox I don't know. Firefox 22 was fast (above 30 MIPS) and then it dropped. No chance to find the problem.
Chrome sometimes thinks that integers are no longer appropriate for some values and deoptimizes the code. But it seems that the asm.js core is stable and fast for Chrome as well.
But of course, a TypeScript program could be much slower than a different JavaScript program, as is probably happening in this case.
I agree with others that the difference in results between JavaScript and TypeScript makes the quality of this paper highly suspect.