I like static typing and I like dynamic typing. Gradual typing gives you the constraints of both without the benefits of either.
JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
41–50 of 285 posts
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#42And then new transpiler language appears, with "real" type system, not java-grade. And everyone stops using typescript, treating it as outdated technology.
It already appeared, and is called Purescript. It's great, and it's about as likely to gain traction as Haskell.
If there's any Haskell-ish JS language that will gain traction, it's Elm.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#43Or at the very least, library documentation really needs to clearly specify the types of parameters and return values. I'm positively surprised when I come across a JavaScript API whose documentation actually specifies this very basic information. Coming from the static typing world, it's astounding...
+1 Documentation in the web development world is usually very good with the introduction, getting you excited; but terrible when it comes to reference, the day-to-day type docs.
While not condoning crappy documentation, the intro is usually the important part. After that, I find stepping through code to be more productive than reading documentation, exclusive of massive frameworks which tend to be fairly well documented anyway.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#44All JavaScript libraries (!) should be authored in JavaScript.
All complex code that uses them should be authored in CoffeeScript.
Nothing more is needed.
P.S. TypeScript is M$ invention -> must burn in hell.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#45I still run into libraries written in Coffeescript, and hate it when I do, because I don't use it and have a hard time following it. Javascript libraries should be written in Javascript. Worship the one true God!
Except this really isn't an issue for TypeScript, it reads that close to JavaScript.
It's not about reading, it's about the tooling you need to set it up. JS initial strengh was ease of dev for beginers. Throw in a transpiler, a dependancy manager, a package manager, a bundler with FS watching, and source maps and what you got is wall for the very same type of dev that were producing all those fantastic jQuery plugins 10 years ago.
And actually even for me.
I do know how to install and use all those. I just don't want to take the afternoon to do so.
Why ?
- Only one project out of 5 are big enough to justify it. - The stack will change in 6 months; - I will need to train anybody who gets on board, and document it, and maintain it. - All this tooling integration is terrible in JS, because they are an agglomerate of stuff we are stacking after the fact to compensate JS bad initial design. The same stack for any other language is 10 times easier to setup and maintain (the stdlib is here for you in Python, you don't need to load a deendancy to generate a uuid), or it's just here out of the box (type hints ? embded in Php) or event completly uneeded (nobody use transpilers in Ruby hence no source maps, etc).
So yes, it's annoying.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#46I still run into libraries written in Coffeescript, and hate it when I do, because I don't use it and have a hard time following it. Javascript libraries should be written in Javascript. Worship the one true God!
Except this really isn't an issue for TypeScript, it reads that close to JavaScript.
Maybe we'll agree to disagree but this [0] doesn't read very close to Javascript at all.
[0] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScriptSamples/blob/master/t...
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#47Starts off with: > Typed vs dynamic is a rather controversial topic, so I’m not trying to spark that discussion all over again. Goes on to explain that typed is betterer... The article doesn't really offer up any real arguments as to why you should specifically use TypeScript, but really just says typed is nice and everyone lints anyway (not true) so the step up to a type system really isn't that big of a deal (also…
I think the core of the argument is this:
> some type definitions are better than none. It may be quite feasible to build conversions from .d.ts to FlowType type definitions or other languages type definitions, so whatever the Future of Typed JavaScript will be, having .d.ts files today will help us in the future to migrate towards it.
So I read the argument as "Give me at least slightly automatically verifiable api with your library".
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#48Absolutely not. This is the opposite of what you should do in my opinion.
If you're writing an API to be consumed in language X then you need to write the API itself in language X. This will help you capture and handle edge cases, language idiosyncrasies and other similar issues the way you want.
Using a different language that gets transpiled into a target language also increases your surface area for bugs because now you have to worry about typescript and JavaScript bugs. After using CoffeeScript a few years back and spending HOURS debugging issues in its transpiling to JavaScript I decided it just wasn't worth the hassle. Besides JavaScript, while not perfect, is pretty damn good.
I love the idea of type script but transpiling it down into a language that isn't as type strict just seems silly to me. Now when it can be compiled to WebAssembly? Count me in.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#49And then new transpiler language appears, with "real" type system, not java-grade. And everyone stops using typescript, treating it as outdated technology.
At that point, you can always transpile from Typescript to javascript or maybe even from Typescript to the new language.
Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript
#50Or at the very least, library documentation really needs to clearly specify the types of parameters and return values. I'm positively surprised when I come across a JavaScript API whose documentation actually specifies this very basic information. Coming from the static typing world, it's astounding...
Yes. And, having worked with typescript, its quite annoying how poor most typings files are that you get from the definitelytyped repository. It's better than nothing, but they are unversioned (so always behind) and often very incomplete. I agree with the author: types are there anyway, typescript seems to work well enough and has traction now, so please, if you write a library: add those type annotations bottom-up i…
I don't agree. Bad documentation is worse than no documentation. At least with no documentation, I start with the expectation that I have to figure everything out on my own.