[TheCoreh]

> like Microsoft with its TypeScript rewrite in Go

My understanding is that Microsoft chose Go precisely to avoid having to do a full rewrite. Of all the “modern” native/AoT compiled languages (Rust, Swift, Go, Zig) Go has the most straightforward 1:1 mapping in semantics with the original TypeScript/JavaScript, so that a tool-assisted translation of the whole codebase is feasible with bug-for-bug compatibility, and minimal support/utility code.

It would be of course _possible_ to port/translate it to any language (Including Rust) but you would essentially end up implementing a small JavaScript runtime and GC, with none or very little of the safety guarantees provided by Rust. (Rust's ownership model generally favors drastically different architectures.)

[jeppester]

As I understood their arguments it was not about the effort needed to rewrite the project.

It was about being able to have two codebases (old and new) that are so structurally similar, that it won't be a big deal to keep updating both

[IshKebab]

No, it was absolutely about the effort needed to rewrite the project. They couldn't afford a rewrite, only a port. They're not going to keep maintaining the Typescript version once they have transitioned to the Go version.