rana1-31

What is a use case for an interpreted runtime language?

How is Deno more efficient?

I have done work on compiler, developer tooling and a lot of other stuff people would consider 'compilated' and working on those was far less complex than some business logic in API's I have had to work upon.

So if the experienced developers writing Deno are using Rust for type safety etc to catch their mistakes, then why would you trust yourself to use a less strict lanaguage on a likely more complex project?

My point was not the compilers/interpreters, it was the fact ALL the tooling is NOT in Deno.

I think you nailed it!

If Deno wouldn't use itself because of reasons like this; then people should really think twice before using it to build anything server side.

Other than browser based applications why would you choose JavaScript/TypeScript etc over Rust?

Developer tooling is not complicated and there is plenty of existing tools written in JavaScript, so it seems weird when they rule out there own language as not good enough. It should make anyone think twice before using Deno server side if it is not good enough for themselves.

You are going to have to reword this, it makes no sense to me.

But not just the runtime, all the tooling including linters and document generators etc why are they not written using Deno then?

So the Deno runtime is written in Rust and so is all the Deno tooling... So why would you use Deno if it is not good enough for itself?