> C#'s speed advantage over JS among many other things would make C# the main language

Nobody cares about this, JS is plenty fast for LLM needs. If maximum performance was necessary, you're better off using Go because of fast compiler and better performance.

>If maximum performance was necessary, you're better off using Go because of fast compiler and better performance.

That's not true, if anything, C# is faster and also compiles fast enough.

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

C# AOT "compiles fast enough" compared to Go or are you looking at C# JIT ?

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

> Nobody cares about this

And that was my point. The choice of using JS/TS for LLM stuff was made for us based on initial wave of SDK availabilities. Nothing to do with language merits.

This has always been the case. The Java and C# ecosystems prioritise stability and scale. They wait for ideas to prove themselves in other languages like Erlang, Python, Go, Scala, and so on, and then adopt the successful ones. Last-mover advantage. That said, there are some caveats. Java is still missing value types, while C# has moved quickly with async/await rather than adopting models like goroutines or virtual threads, which can sometimes limit concurrency ergonomics for the developer.

Not in the browser, and no – webassembly doesn't count, otherwise you can say the same about Go and others.

Wasm does count, and you can say the same about Go and others.

Sure, they run, but they can't touch the DOM or do much that's very interesting without JavaScript.

Js just runs as is. Atwood's Law and all that.

I remember a time ...

Why doesn’t wasm count?

Compile step makes things more complicated.

As opposed to minimized JS.

You don’t need to minimize JS to be able to run it.

why would the tool minify the script it generated?

Same problem, different orders of magnitude.

May I ask, what is this obsession with targeting the browser? I've also noticed a hatred of k8s here, and while I truly understand it, I'd take the complication of managing infrastructure over frontend fads any day.

HN has a hatred of K8s? That’s new to me

K8s is used in many situations it shouldn't be, and a lot of HNers (including me) are bitter about having to deal with the resulting messes

This is a site for startups. They have no business running k8s, in fact, many of the lessons learned get passed on from graybeards to the younger generation along those lines. Perhaps I'm wrong! I'd love to talk shop somewhere.

java did run in the browser once.... it was embedded directly on the browser there was also nsapi

you could also run java with js if you are brave enough https://kreijstal.github.io/java-tools/

Java runs in the browser currently, after a transpilation step (same as .ts):

https://teavm.org/

Also CheerpJ (with support for Swing UIs even), Closure compiler, and now GraalVM also has an experimental WasmGC target.

> technology that is supposed to make all of them unemployed.

To make all of us (other poor fuckers) unemployed.

Hope nobody buys Astral or Python is f*cked.

Our entire business runs on Python without a drop of Astral in the mix. No one would even notice.

you should try uv, really impressive tool

Honestly, that is an understatement. `uv run` has transformed how I use Python since 99% of the time I don't need to setup or manage an environment and dependencies. A have tons of one-off Python scripts (with their dependencies in PEP 723 metadata at the top of the file) that just work with `uv run`.

I get how it might not be as useful in a production deployment where the system/container will be setup just for that Python service, but for less structured use-cases, `uv` is a silver bullet.

Then it would probably be back to Poetry. Or some other newcomer, or maybe a fork of uv.

If you froze uv today it’ll take years for anything to get to a state where the switch would be worth it.

uv is very forkable - dual-licensed under Apache and MIT, high quality codebase, it's Rust rather than Python but the Python community has an increasing amount of Rust experience these days.

That's why I'm not personally too nervous about the strategic risk to the Python community of having such a significant piece of the ecosystem from a relatively young VC-backed company.

Honestly, given the constant rollercoaster of version management and building tools for Python the move to something else would be expected rather than surprising.

I’ve seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about piping, too.

uv is a revolution in every possible positive sense of the word in the Python world and I've been here since 1.5. it is imperative that bitter oldtimers like us try it, I did and the only regret I've got is that I didn't do it sooner.

I also tried it and am now using it for new projects. But I was just fine with Poetry too. Yes, uv is faster and probably better code. But my use-cases didn't necessitate to re-create the venvs frequently, so the slowness of Poetry didn't matter that much to me, and I am not using the "one-off script" kind of approaches that uv enables (writing the dependencies in a comment in the script itself).

So, yeah, uv is nice, but for me didn't fundamentally change that much.

Autocorrect messed up my last line, should say:

uv seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about pipenv, too.

I don't want to even think about it. uv has been a revelation!

#1, uv is open-source and it could easily be forked and kept up to date.

#2, if you don't like uv, you can switch to something else.

uv probably has the least moat around it of anything. Truly a meritocracy: people use it because it's good, not because they're stuck with it.

> Meanwhile those same people fester, working away on their little corner.

Maybe because idiots usurp all power and ostracize those loners?

Ever tried to really go against the grain in a relatively big corp? And I’m not talking about writing a couple angry emails/slack messages.

> winning turf wars, new collaboration with a cousin team

Get a life, bro.

Did you miss the part about me being remote for 5 years?

> [has benefits]

Long-term and for the company. Of course I’m going to dismiss it lol, why the fuck would I want to be left holding the bag?

> A lot of people cannot handle remote work for different reasons

So how come those who can handle it are being punished?

Valid question, but it's quite obvious: The shift to WFH was sudden and rushed, so now the number of people who need to be brought back in the office is huge.

You can't go through a company and retroactively subtract a benefit from ~half of the people without getting completely buried under discrimination lawsuits from angry people who think you forced them into the office but let Bob WFH because you're illegally discriminating.

So the companies are changing the policy for everyone and then granting "exceptions" on a case by case basis going forward, using newly defined criteria.

Again, please don't downvote the messenger. I'm just describing what's happening, not saying I approve.

I mean, layoffs are always sudden and rushed, but companies don't seem to mind thrusting people into that new situation. Also, I'm sorry, but we've had about six years to figure this out (i.e. to get Zoom volume licensing). Any company that hasn't figured out how to set up a VPN and video chat by now is uh... slow.

> So why would this make managers push RTO more?

> Proximity [office] *increases* development

Do you seriously expect managers to read anything beyond title?

> Keep your eyes open for a better job?

This is literally opposite of “keep doors open”, if you find a better job you need to grind leetcode to get there.