151
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
151 points (96.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
31253 readers
2337 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 (correction GHC has had LT by extension since 9.0). 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
GHC has had experimental support for linear types in Haskell since version 9.0.1
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.)
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.
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.