I think folks want TypeScript to use C# because it's Microsoft, I'm glad they didn't just do that for corporate reasons. But I'm open to there being non-corporate reasons!
At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft are in the business of making money and that's one of the reasons they made C#. If they don't see the profit in using one of their own products (and one that competes with Go) in their future products then why would I use them for mine?
It's like if they used Google Cloud instead of Azure, it'd be very weird.
That may be overstating how dead C# is. But I think it is accurate to whimsicalism's point.
This happens despite the checklist similarity between these languages.
hearing of this pains me
Go has structural typing, non-compacting GCs, allows you to freely choose value / reference types, can make references to variables, strings are bytes or UTF-8, async is built-in to the runtime, async scheduling is preemptive, and module boundaries are defined by the package you’re in. Applications are typically shipped as native code with a linked-in runtime. Interfaces are extrinsic to objects, from a runtime perspective. You cannot overload functions. Hard to dynamically load code at runtime.
When I write it down like this, they don’t seem all that similar to me. They’re all… garbage collected and imperative? Memory safe (or mostly) by default? That doesn’t seem like a lot of commonalities.
“They are all used for backend programming” isn’t really that interesting because backend is where you can choose whatever language you want. Facebook has a ton of Hack backend, Jane Street has OCaML, etc.
Virtual threads are not preemptive. Maybe you can point me to documentation that says otherwise, but my understanding is that virtual threads are scheduled at blocking IO points or places where the thread interacts with the runtime.
Strings can be represented internally as bytes in Java but this is kind of an optimization which happens behind the scenes under specific scenarios, and it’s not a part of the string API like it is with Go. What you’re saying is technically correct but it’s not relevant.
You can use package-private accessibility in Java but surely you can see the clear difference between the way Java and C# work, and the way that languages like Rust, Go, and Haskell work, where the module is the primary technique for modularization (rather than the class).
I’m really just trying to describe differences here, so I don’t think it’s really useful to fight over the technical details. Go doesn’t walk like Java, doesn’t quack like Java, it doesn’t look like Java when you squint your eyes.
New companies aren't generally starting with Microsoft as their OS, these 'lots of companies' are legacy/enterprise stragglers and/or European.
That explains a lot then, because I see a lot of C# still around here. Even for new projects.
I still don't understand their rationale for not using Rust however. This is going to be run millions of times a day by web devs - it makes sense to make it as fast as possible. Optimizing for similarity of codebases doesn't seem right imo, and a dubious position to begin with as Go and Typescript aren't that similar anyway.
It's simple, it's cheaper and faster (Time to market) to do Go than Rust. Rust has a pretty high learning curve, and there aren't many people writing it internally in MSFT I guess. Go's syntax is literally C + Python, from my previous experience, ramping up is a pretty fast affair as an experienced dev.