Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So isn't not changing more sensible than changing to an arbitrary alternative?

The current developers surely are more familiar with the Babel representation than OXC, so why switch?

 help



What I mean is, if you're going to rewrite it in Rust, why rewrite Babel rather than leaning on the existing ecosystem? I know they're not actually rewriting Babel, just reusing the semantic layout of its AST, but it's feeling a bit like the MediaWiki parser situation to me (roughly "if we started from scratch today, we wouldn't choose to have it this way, but we started a different way before, and it's been a difficult path to get to where we want to be"). Maybe that's a fairly remote analogy but it feels similar.

> if we started from scratch today, we wouldn't choose to have it this way, but we started a different way before, and it's been a difficult path to get to where we want to be"

This is just how software development for a large public project goes. If you want to land big changes in a finite amount of time, you take the path that breaks the least number of things along the way.

Once the whole ecosystem is rust-based, they can always trim out some of the redundant intermediate representations for performance gains.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: