Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

staltz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#171

Post by klibertp »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #90
icholy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like knee-jerk reaction from someone who's never tried TypeScript.

I've used it but never in a serious project. Like I said when it can be compiled into WebAssembly then count me in I'll certainly give it another shot. But until then I just don't want to deal with an, albiet probably rare but possible, transpiling bug. Plus there is huge value, in my opinion, in writing an API in the same language it's going to be consumed in. It lets me dogfood more effectively and write better, re…

> Plus there is huge value, in my opinion, in writing an API in the same language it's going to be consumed in.

Making APIs so that they are only accessible from a single language should be outlawed.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#172

Post by joshuacc »

bd82 wrote: post #137
wereHamster wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With `--target=es6` I'm not sure if the TypeScript compiler does any code transformation other than removing type annotations. So the chance of a 'transpiler error' is basically zero.

There are a few small things that still require conversion. But that is because Typescript also includes capabilities from ES7 (ES2016). For example - currently in Typescript but only planned for ES7: https://github.com/jeffmo/es-class-fields-and-static-propert... or Support ES7: exponentiation operator https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/4812 Typescript seems to be more like ECMAScript.next + types rather…

FYI, those are not ES2016 features. ES2016 only includes two small feature enhancements. They might make it into 2017, but if TC39 decides they're not ready, they'll just keep not including the feature in the annual spec revision.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#173

Post by Eridrus »

robert_tweed wrote: post #115
Bahamut wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understood the point of the article - it was targeted at library maintainers, not all users. Types often end up a part of the documentation, and internal typing is often needed in libraries to keep track of model state, so having it at the foundational level in the library itself adds tremendous benefit.

Yes, I don't think I was clear enough but I edited a lot of points out of my post as it was far too long! The biggest problems in any modern, large-scale JavaScript project are the build process and dependency management. If you are publishing a TypeScript library then it can be consumed either natively as TypeScript, or as ES5. If it is being consumed as ES5 then your consumers lose most of the benefits of it being…

> If it is being consumed as ES5 then your consumers lose most of the benefits of it being in TS. For them to consume it as native TS puts a fairly hefty constraint on their build process, namely that it must go through the TypeScript compiler.

Unless you're making changes to a TS library, there should be no need to build it and you can just use existing the built js files from the library.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#174

Post by tlarkworthy »

icholy wrote: post #86
weego wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticism of that statement kind of hinges on the source material being solid enough to be taken seriously. I mean, one of his main points is that everything written in JS should be written in typescript because it helps support typescript users. Another it is leads to better documentation, with no qualification of how that happens. It might make your intent more explicit to a reader of the source code, but that does…

> I mean, one of his main points is that everything written in JS should be written in typescript because it helps support typescript users. I agree, that wasn't a good point. > Another it is leads to better documentation, with no qualification of how that happens The type annotations make the source self documenting in a way that doesn't go out of sync. There's also http://typedoc.io/

Typedoc doesn't keep up with TS versions. It's not really solid enough.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#175

Post by blakeyrat »

impostervt wrote: post #13

I 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!

This is like the fourth or fifth post in this thread where people are confusing CoffeeScript and TypeScript. Why is that? They're totally different.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#176

Post by tkinom »

radicalbyte wrote: post #130
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #48

Absolutely 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 n…

Have you used TypeScript? Try it out for a month or two on a real project. It's the best thing that has happened to web development in recent years - it improves Javascript in a completely compatible and future proof way. The most amazing thing is that Microsoft created it. It's the polar opposite of Old Microsoft - standards are being followed (not subverted), it's simple pragmatic and has no lock-in.

I have not used TypeScript personally, just read and try some demo of it.

But for me JS -> TS feels like C -> C++ evolution/Transition. For most of Unix utillies or even as complex as Linux Kernel, Apache, Nginx, C is good enough. In the hands of developers who master it, there are no C++ equivalent.

For after look at the v8's C++ code, I can't imagine anyone would write that with C.

But when a new language's ego system is not mature enough, the development work flow can be a nightmare. I remember trying to use GWT to compile Java into JS. The demo works and looks cool. But more often or not, I end up debug "The JAVA code" AND "The machine generated Javascript" AND "how that JS interact with different browsers" for something that is extremely trivial to do with one line of JS/JQuery code.

* Writing code is easy. * Debugging code is harder. * Make sure that code works on all the browsers are much harder.

* Debugging system with multiple languages (JS, TS, React, Angular, polymer, etc) + machine generated code is not easy.

* Integrated them all together to fixed all issues and make sure the final program will work on all browsers are > N^2, N^3, N^4 times harder?

I am old enough to admit, that is not a job for me. :-)

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#177

Post by tommyd »

moron4hire wrote: post #140
danielmason wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sympathetic to the worst-of-both-worlds problem, but can this actually be true? In the case of types, constraints actually are the benefit, right? Do you mean that if you don't have compile-time assurance for 100% of the code, the value of whatever % type coverage you have isn't very useful? As someone who's evaluating Typescript and Flow for a team of JS devs, my intuition is that having some typed code would gi…

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you're programming in a dynamic language, there are things that you do that would not easily fly in a static language. Things like tests for truthiness. On first blush, from a static background, something like "var p = x && x.y && x.y.z || w;" look terrible, but they're pretty standard ways of cascading through different options without causing null pointer exceptions in a langua…

  So it just leaves you in this limbo zone where you don't get to use the features of the native language that make up for it being so crappy, nor do you ever get to use the features of the transpiled language that promises to keep your code easy to modify over time. So that's what I mean about "worst of both worlds".
I have to disagree with you on this - as you mentioned, you can always use the "any" type - you lose type safety but can then do more or less anything "type unsafe" you could do in JS... so to my mind it's almost more like the best of both worlds, you get strong typing wherever practical but you also have an escape hatch for times when it's too hard/impossible to type something.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#178

Post by chadaustin »

Eridrus wrote: post #163
Hurtak wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is TypeScript really future proof? I mean unless types, exactly implemented as they are in TypeScript, will become part of the spec, we can't really call it future proof. Also how is it compatible with anything, JavaScript is compatible with TypeScript, since TypeScript is superset of JS, but it is not compatible the other way around.

Sort of. I don't recall the details from the top of my head and can't easily seem to find details, but I think we're seeing some divergence between Typescript's classes and es6 classes, though I think it's mostly syntactic. Your code will keep working, but it may diverge a bit from standard JS; however everything will keep working, and I'm sure the expectation would be to move over the es6's syntax unless there were…

I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're exactly right - there are a few tiny divergences between ES6 and TypeScript. In particular, try compiling some classes with Babel's strict compatibility mode and compare the output to TypeScript's output. There are several small semantic differences.

Also, there a few constructs in TypeScript that generate JavaScript code, like enum and module.

THAT SAID, TypeScript is basically ES6 + type annotations, and can certainly be used as such.

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#179

Post by rtfeldman »

tommyd wrote: post #170
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Elm didn't also exist, I'd almost agree with you.

In an ideal world I'm sure a lot of us would love to work with Elm, but the reality in a commercial situation is often that the choice of language is driven by factors like: how widely used/well known it is, what the availability of libraries for it is like, how easy it is to hire developers with experience for. This unfortunately makes languages like Elm and Clojurescript unlikely to be chosen in a lot of situations…

You can totally use JS libraries with Elm. Source: we do it all the time at NoRedInk, and we've been using Elm in production for our millions of users (as our go-to for all front-end work at the company, not just as a side thing) for the better part of a year now. :)

Details about our experience with Elm in production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2FtMbb-nLs

Re: JavaScript libraries should be written in TypeScript

#180

Post by aljones »

maaaats wrote: post #72
robert_tweed wrote: post #55

I'm not certain I agree. I agree with better type systems, but does anyone remember ECMAScript 4? Which Microsoft vetoed after Macromedia had gone ahead and adopted it as ActionScript 3 (coincidentally around the time they were trying to get everyone to adopt Silverlight). Well that's basically what TypeScript is (with slightly more advanced type support). It's a nonstandard dialect of JavaScript. Something that ever…

What does one miss out from Babel, given that TS is a superset of ES6?

Babel is highly configurable and relatively easy to write plugins for.
Post reply on HN