Listen I absolutely love rust but it’s not even close. Typescript’s type system is orders of magnitude more powerful, to the point where it is actually turing complete.
Typescript doesn’t have linear types. Not even Haskell has linear types. Give Rust some credit for having linear types (AKA borrow checker).
Ps. Typescript doesn’t have dependent types and their type system is a joke even compared to Purescript. Here’s a little writeup about it: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/66729809
Thanks. I think it’s most fair to count what a language has without extensions but thanks for the correction. To that end, Haskell basically has Dependent Types now too if you pile 10 extensions together (singletons, linear types, and others) and squint a little. It’ll easily be the first production-grade language to do so.
That’s not realistic or “fair” - most Haskell projects will use a dozen or so extensions easily. GHC has been a platform for language experimentation for a long time; standardisation efforts keep on cropping up in annual surveys. (Eg, swapping in Text for String in base is long overdue, but it’s a hold over from days where FP pedagogy was seen as more important.)
I code a ton in both Rust and Typescript for work… I think Rust has just as capable of a type system, but leveraging macros for functional defs vs object ones.
Count us rust folks in. Typescript may doing it’s best, but it’s not as great
Listen I absolutely love rust but it’s not even close. Typescript’s type system is orders of magnitude more powerful, to the point where it is actually turing complete.
Typescript doesn’t have linear types. Not even Haskell has linear types. Give Rust some credit for having linear types (AKA borrow checker).
Ps. Typescript doesn’t have dependent types and their type system is a joke even compared to Purescript. Here’s a little writeup about it: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/66729809
Typescript’s string pattern types are quite neat though
That’s true and they’re great for prototyping but I’ve fallen in love with Purescript for that domain. So I’m a bit biased.
GHC has had experimental support for linear types in Haskell since version 9.0.1
Thanks. I think it’s most fair to count what a language has without extensions but thanks for the correction. To that end, Haskell basically has Dependent Types now too if you pile 10 extensions together (singletons, linear types, and others) and squint a little. It’ll easily be the first production-grade language to do so.
That’s not realistic or “fair” - most Haskell projects will use a dozen or so extensions easily. GHC has been a platform for language experimentation for a long time; standardisation efforts keep on cropping up in annual surveys. (Eg, swapping in Text for String in base is long overdue, but it’s a hold over from days where FP pedagogy was seen as more important.)
I code a ton in both Rust and Typescript for work… I think Rust has just as capable of a type system, but leveraging macros for functional defs vs object ones.