Can you compile TS from inside of JS or TS? something like `babel.transformFile`, that gives you back the compiled code?
Announcing TypeScript 1.7
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#22Can you compile TS from inside of JS or TS? something like `babel.transformFile`, that gives you back the compiled code?
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#23Typescript has became my favorite language. The option of having types when you need them is great and the addition of async/await make working with promises a lot nicer. Ever since I've been able to use experimental features and get es6 support with typescript I've never looked back. The only thing lacking now is the tooling. The atom-typescript plugin is the best I've found but I would love to see better integration with other editors. Can't wait to see what comes to typescript next!
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#24I remember when MicroSoft tried to make it's own superscript of JS and people said "Hey this is a bad idea. Standards are a thing for a reason and we should all stick to them." That argument was correct then and it's correct now, IMHO.
Where is the objection in 2015? Is it just people are so desensitized by other companies attempts to make JS replacements (that for now compile to JS) that another one just doesn't bug anyone?
I realize the temptation for big companies like Microsoft with thousands of devs to roll their own, but when every big company abandons standards to focus on their own little alcove we all suffer.
And yeah, I realize you can frame it as they haven't abandoned the standard because TypeScript compiles to JS and yada, yada. But I disagree. If instead of focusing on TypeScript which you can only take advantage of by working in TypeScript, they focused on libraries for JS that we could all use, I think we'd all be better off. And that goes for all large corporations that decide to roll their own solutions instead of sticking to standards.
Which is not to say JS can never be replaced, I'd say it's long overdue for replacement. But that's never going to happen by every big company rolling their own thing. Everybody has to come together.
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#25Polymorphic this is really useful for the 'cannot reference a type twice in the type list' issue you get when doing generics. Since learning it I have used it many times. It's solves many issues like typing a clone method. Awesome addition!
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#26To me, this appears to be the way to go. Javascript + Typescript. Rather than deciding on weak (dynamic) typing vs strong typing, you pick both - incremental typing, as allowed by Typescript. Want to bang up a quick solution, as in MVP? Use bare-bones Javascript, it is all valid Typescript. So you get dynamic typing. And if you do not care about strong typing, you can just stop right there. But if you, some day, for…
How is this different from using Facebook Flow? I have been using Flow on a JavaScript project, along with Babel for ES6, and enjoying the experience quite a lot.
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#27To me, this appears to be the way to go. Javascript + Typescript. Rather than deciding on weak (dynamic) typing vs strong typing, you pick both - incremental typing, as allowed by Typescript. Want to bang up a quick solution, as in MVP? Use bare-bones Javascript, it is all valid Typescript. So you get dynamic typing. And if you do not care about strong typing, you can just stop right there. But if you, some day, for…
We've been using it over at Ionic, and that's exactly what we've found as well. Types are great...but they're overhead that most apps don't need on day one. When you just want to get something up and running you can skip them. Once you dig in and really build out the application, you can add them and get a bunch of great benefits (type safety, autocompletion, "free" API documentation, etc.). On top of that, tsc is po…
You consider typing to be an over head? Do you really reuse variables within a scope to refer to different types? I feel like that would produce confusing to read and use code.
IMO dynamic typing is hard to work with and slows things down. "Auto-typing" or type inference like in Swift, Kotlin, or Dart is the most amazing thing ever. It gives you the safety of static types and the "speed" of coding of dynamic types.
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#28To me, this appears to be the way to go. Javascript + Typescript. Rather than deciding on weak (dynamic) typing vs strong typing, you pick both - incremental typing, as allowed by Typescript. Want to bang up a quick solution, as in MVP? Use bare-bones Javascript, it is all valid Typescript. So you get dynamic typing. And if you do not care about strong typing, you can just stop right there. But if you, some day, for…
> Want to bang up a quick solution, as in MVP? Use bare-bones Javascript Actually, adding the bare minimum of type annotations (fields & function signatures) and type casts (e.g. casting whatever you get from querySelector into the concrete type of element) results in fewer key presses, because you can auto-complete everything and because you get additional machine-assistance like call tips and type checks. So, you'l…
Man type inference is so nice.
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#29I remember when MicroSoft tried to make it's own superscript of JS and people said "Hey this is a bad idea. Standards are a thing for a reason and we should all stick to them." That argument was correct then and it's correct now, IMHO. Where is the objection in 2015? Is it just people are so desensitized by other companies attempts to make JS replacements (that for now compile to JS) that another one just doesn't bug…
> But that's never going to happen by every big company rolling their own thing. Everybody has to come together.
Google has ditched their own and rolled their efforts into Typescript.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/05/microsoft-and-google-collab...
Re: Announcing TypeScript 1.7
#30To me, this appears to be the way to go. Javascript + Typescript. Rather than deciding on weak (dynamic) typing vs strong typing, you pick both - incremental typing, as allowed by Typescript. Want to bang up a quick solution, as in MVP? Use bare-bones Javascript, it is all valid Typescript. So you get dynamic typing. And if you do not care about strong typing, you can just stop right there. But if you, some day, for…
I hate the stupid, stupid implication that adding type information will slow a programmer down an appreciable amount.
Even for MVPs the opposite is almost always true.