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

Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#11

Post by YCode »

pryelluw wrote: post #8
YCode wrote: post #6

What sold me on TypeScript was that it didn't just add features, it actively solved a problem I'd been experiencing. Once a JavaScript project scales beyond what can fit in your head, JS's initial productivity boost crumbles because you have to constantly double back and make sure your methods/constructors/etc. are correctly used, which properties are optional, etc... A lot of the debugging happens in runtime and god…

Have you tried Elm? Id love to know your experiences.

I haven't; I haven't tried Flow either which looked promising.

For kicks I tried the online Elm demo. Offhand it doesn't seem like Elm highlights errors inline(?). The syntax also looks a little foreign, whereas TS generally still looks like JS with a few exceptions.

I imagine Elm/Flow both have this, but another thing I like that TS does in VSCode at least with a watching task is collecting errors project-wide in a "problems" window.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#12

Post by gryzzly »

Anyone got a link on how to transition existing large webpack/React/babel project to using Typescript? Googling I only found https://medium.com/@clayallsopp/incrementally-migrating-java... but it doesn’t use ts-loader and doesn’t go into details on how to use typings. I tried following ts-loader docs, but things broke at `import flatten from 'lodash/flatten'` and adding typings for `lodash ` didn’t help. Would be interesting what strategies people use to get it working in existing project.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#13

Post by arcosdev »

What turns me off immediately about TypeScript (and examples in the article show it) is the use of the class construct. If I could see some examples of teams writing TypeScript without falling into the use of classes I would feel a lot better about it. I am in full agreement with Douglas Crockford and others that adding pseudo-classes to JS was a big mistake.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#14

Post by mixedCase »

uranian wrote: post #9

>At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web. And when webassembly arrives that will be over, and Typescript will be deprecated. I can't wait for a better modern language like Haskell, Python, Livescript, etc.. built on top of webassembly. Then we can finally stop trying to fix Javascript's flaws with new language features.

WA with a performant web API, you mean. First iteration of WA won't let you touch things like the DOM without jumping through JS-land.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#15

Post by mixedCase »

_m8fo wrote: post #2

I haven't used TypeScript extensively, but I feel that there should be more of a push (maybe there is, please correct me if I'm wrong) to introduce whatever functionality people deem worthy that exists in TypeScript and introduce it to JavaScript. You can already see the conflict happening as some people prefer Flow and others TypeScript. Perhaps later Google will throw their hat into the ring and introduce GScript.…

Google already has Dart.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#16

Post by talmand »

uranian wrote: post #9

>At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web. And when webassembly arrives that will be over, and Typescript will be deprecated. I can't wait for a better modern language like Haskell, Python, Livescript, etc.. built on top of webassembly. Then we can finally stop trying to fix Javascript's flaws with new language features.

Yep, then we can focus on other language's flaws by implementing new features.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#17

Post by Enginerd3 »

uranian wrote: post #9

>At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web. And when webassembly arrives that will be over, and Typescript will be deprecated. I can't wait for a better modern language like Haskell, Python, Livescript, etc.. built on top of webassembly. Then we can finally stop trying to fix Javascript's flaws with new language features.

At the end of the day, JS will always be the language of the web. You're still going to be doing DOM manipulation through JS. WASM is really going to benefit people who want to do more heavy duty edge cases such as image processing.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#18

Post by pimterry »

uranian wrote: post #9

>At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web. And when webassembly arrives that will be over, and Typescript will be deprecated. I can't wait for a better modern language like Haskell, Python, Livescript, etc.. built on top of webassembly. Then we can finally stop trying to fix Javascript's flaws with new language features.

>> At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web.

> And when webassembly arrives that will be over,

I really don't think this is true. I certainly agree that JavaScript isn't the perfect language, but it's a _very_ popular language. Even on the server-side, where right now you already do have the freedom to use languages like Haskell, Python, etc, you see a majority of developers now opting for Node.js. Even for desktop apps and data scientists, it's the most popular contender (all according to the latest SO survey).

You can argue about reasons all you like, but I don't think the people using JavaScript on the web are doing so only because webassembly isn't easily available yet. I think they're doing so because, for better or worse, they genuinely want to be using JavaScript (or very closely related languages like TypeScript).

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#19

Post by zengid »

uranian wrote: post #9

>At the end of the day, though, JavaScript is the language of the web. And when webassembly arrives that will be over, and Typescript will be deprecated. I can't wait for a better modern language like Haskell, Python, Livescript, etc.. built on top of webassembly. Then we can finally stop trying to fix Javascript's flaws with new language features.

IMO I feel like it is going to be a challenge to integrate the GC of another language with the GC of the JavaScript/DOM, and if so we'll be keeping JavaScript going for a while.

Re: Glimmer.js: What’s the Deal with TypeScript?

#20

Post by pimterry »

arcosdev wrote: post #13

What turns me off immediately about TypeScript (and examples in the article show it) is the use of the class construct. If I could see some examples of teams writing TypeScript without falling into the use of classes I would feel a lot better about it. I am in full agreement with Douglas Crockford and others that adding pseudo-classes to JS was a big mistake.

> I am in full agreement with Douglas Crockford and others that adding pseudo-classes to JS was a big mistake.

Why?

It's certainly not a requirement of TS, any more than it is in JS, and I've seen people writing large TS codebases without classes. Typically with a much more functional approach though. I don't see people writing many prototypical objects with TS. Is there a good reason they should be?

Post reply on HN