Why I switched from Typescript to Rust

Why I switched from Typescript to Rust

Alexandre Hanot

After nearly a year of diving into Rust, transitioning from a TypeScript background, I can wholeheartedly say I have no regrets. The journey has been enlightening, challenging, and rewarding. Rust, a language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software, has features that particularly stand out and address some of the limitations I faced in TypeScript. Here are my reflections on this shift:

1. Rust Native Newtypes

Rust's approach to newtypes is something I greatly appreciate. Unlike TypeScript, where we often rely on type aliases, Rust newtypes provide a way to create distinct types. This adds a layer of type safety, preventing accidental mixing of types.

struct Kilometers(i32);
struct Miles(i32);
 
fn travel(distance: Kilometers) {
    // Function logic specific to Kilometers
}

Example usage:

let distance = Kilometers(15);
travel(distance);

2. The Power of From/Into Traits

The From and Into traits in Rust are a game-changer, simplifying conversions between types. This is a step up from TypeScript's more manual and error-prone type conversions.

struct Circle {
    radius: f64,
}
 
struct Square {
    side: f64,
}
 
impl From<Square> for Circle {
    fn from(square: Square) -> Self {
        Circle { radius: square.side * 0.5 }
    }
}
 
// Usage
let square = Square { side: 4.0 };
let circle: Circle = square.into();

3. Multiplatform Support

Rust's multiplatform capabilities are impressive. It seamlessly supports various platforms, which was often a challenge in the TypeScript/JavaScript ecosystem, especially when dealing with native modules.

4. Uncompromising Type Safety

Rust takes type safety to another level. There's no equivalent to TypeScript's "as any" workaround. Rust's strict type system ensures more robust and reliable code.

let number: i32 = 5;
let text: String = "Hello".to_string();
 
// This will result in a compile-time error
let result: i32 = number + text;

5. Cargo Features

The Cargo package manager's feature flags allow for adding optional features to a library without bloating the crate size. Users can opt-in to features they need, which is a more flexible approach compared to npm packages.

Example of conditional compilation:

#[cfg(feature = "json_support")]
fn process_json() {
    // Functionality available only when the 'json_support' feature is enabled
}

6. Cargo Workspace

Unlike the often troublesome npm workspaces, Rust's Cargo workspace is a joy to work with. It eliminates the need for complex setups like turborepo, streamlining the development process.

[workspace]
members = [
    "crate1",
    "crate2",
]

7. Performance Gains

Rust's performance is stellar. The efficient compilation to machine code means faster execution, a significant step up from the interpreted nature of TypeScript.

Rust vs TypeScript Performance

8. Option & Result Types

Rust's Option and Result types elegantly handle the presence or absence of values and error handling, respectively. This approach is more intuitive and less error-prone than TypeScript's undefined, null, or exceptions.

fn find_value(key: &str) -> Option<&str> {
    // Returns Some(value) if found, or None otherwise
}
 
fn process_data(data: &str) -> Result<(), MyError> {
    // Returns Ok(()) if successful, or Err(MyError) if an error occurs
}

9. Clear Separation of Data and Implementation

Rust enforces a clear separation between data (structs) and behavior (impls). This leads to more organized and maintainable code, as opposed to TypeScript's more flexible, but sometimes chaotic, structure.

struct Data {
    // fields
}
 
impl Data {
    fn process(&self) {
        // method implementation
    }
}

What I Miss from TypeScript

Despite the many benefits, there are a few things I miss from TypeScript:

1. Easy Lambda Functions

Rust's Fn trait isn't as straightforward as TypeScript's arrow functions. Rust requires more boilerplate for closures, especially when dealing with lifetimes or async functions.

let add_one = |x: i32| x + 1;
 
// Rust's equivalent of an async function with a requirement R, a return type T, and an error type E
type Lambda<R, T, E> = Box<dyn Fn(R) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<T, E>> + Send + Sync>>>;

2. Type Inference

TypeScript's type inference is more flexible. In Rust, explicit type declarations are more common, which can be verbose.

let number = 5; // Rust infers the type as i32
 
fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 { // Explicit type declaration
    a + b
}
const number = 5 // TypeScript infers the type as number
 
function add(a: number, b: number) {
  // No explicit type declaration, add return type is of type number
  return a + b
}

3. Union Types

Rust requires using enums to achieve what TypeScript does with union types. This can sometimes lead to more verbose code.

enum MyUnion {
    Num(i32),
    Text(String),
}

In conclusion, transitioning to Rust has been a rewarding experience. While there are aspects of TypeScript I miss, Rust's robustness, performance, and type safety make it an excellent choice for many projects. The journey from TypeScript to Rust has been one of growth and learning, and I look forward to continuing

Remark Remote Code
OSZAR »