undefined | Better HN

0 pointspaulddraper4y ago0 comments

I don't understand. Can't you just abstract this?

Python has several internal string representations to reduce conversions.

Really "UTF-16 string" and "UTF-8 string" are code smells. Applications should be using character/code point sequences or byte sequences.

Using code unit sequences is....bizzare. (Yes I know Java, C#, JS has chosen to do that, but a new language has an opportunity to improve.)

0 comments

kevingadd4y ago

You can abstract it, but AssemblyScript did not. So it's not a trivial change, it's a complex migration. Similarly, you can use UTF-8 in Java and C#, but you can't just "switch" them over to the encoding directly, it has to be exposed via new types/etc.

trusktr4y ago

Note that AssemblyScript rides on TypeScript language syntax. How would

``` let foo: string = "whatever" ```

be able to work in any similar sense as TS/JS if? How can that map to multiple string types? The idea is both AS and TS use the same syntax for strings, and are compatible across boundaries (TS for JS side, AS for Wasm side). Having multiple string types is possible, but this would greatly reduce developer ergonomics.

paulddraperOP4y ago

First you have to decide whether AssemblyScript is a language, or a compiler for an existing language.

If it's a language, then it gets to decide what ```let foo: string = "whatever"``` means.

If it's a compiler for an existing language, then semantics have already been decided, and the compiler has to implement it.

But none of the precludes abstraction to reduce data type conversions.

trusktr4y ago

AssemblyScript is a compiler that aims to compile TypeScript code (with slight differences to be able to make sense in Wasm, though trying to minimize those differences) into Wasm. To remain compatible with TypeScript (which is AssemblyScript's goal) and be an optimal language for Wasm that will communicate with TS/JS on the other side, the type `string` would need to be in the same format to avoid any perf hit or data loss while passing thing if that type across the Wasm-JS boundary.

I'm not sure what type of compiler to label that as, but that's the goal.

1 more reply

paulddraperOP4y ago

If I understand correctly, AssemblyScript has been building ahead of specs on Interface Types?

I sympathize with pain, but the bleeding edge of tech does...bleed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kevingadd4y ago

trusktr4y ago

Note that AssemblyScript rides on TypeScript language syntax. How would

``` let foo: string = "whatever" ```

paulddraperOP4y ago

First you have to decide whether AssemblyScript is a language, or a compiler for an existing language.

If it's a language, then it gets to decide what ```let foo: string = "whatever"``` means.

If it's a compiler for an existing language, then semantics have already been decided, and the compiler has to implement it.

But none of the precludes abstraction to reduce data type conversions.

trusktr4y ago

I'm not sure what type of compiler to label that as, but that's the goal.

1 more reply

paulddraperOP4y ago

If I understand correctly, AssemblyScript has been building ahead of specs on Interface Types?

I sympathize with pain, but the bleeding edge of tech does...bleed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse