241–250 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure function level scope over block level is a bad thing. It makes it more Lisp-y. Lisp has block scope.
Well, it can have both...
Can you write Lisp like this?
Function for(){ f(x); var x = 2; }
Compiles and runs with f(undefined)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Language Specification looks pretty extensive[1]. And TypeScript is just the language, so there's no API to document besides what your browser exposes in JS. [1] http://www.typescriptlang.org/Content/TypeScript%20Language%...
Of course there is no API to document, and I noted the spec PDF in my top comment. Where is the manual, or something like one? At Microsoft, do they just tell a developer new to TypeScript to read the spec? Highly unlikely. MSDN is full of good documentation, and it's very weird that there's nothing of the sort for this project. I'd think that's an awful lot more important than Vim integration and such. Even CoffeeSc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust me when I say that if you use .NET, you're always going to be stuck with Microsoft. Mono, the only other somewhat viable implementation of the CLR, just doesn't really cut it in practice -- at least for ASP.NET.
hmm, mind sharing why? My limited Mono experience was that getting a simple ASP.NET application running on a Linux VPS was, without prior Mono experience, one hours' work. I was pretty impressed by this.
That said, Mono benchmarked about 4x slower on my web apps.
For me, better to use two Windows instances rather than deal with the ongoing Mono compatibility drama across 8 Linux machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there is no API to document, and I noted the spec PDF in my top comment. Where is the manual, or something like one? At Microsoft, do they just tell a developer new to TypeScript to read the spec? Highly unlikely. MSDN is full of good documentation, and it's very weird that there's nothing of the sort for this project. I'd think that's an awful lot more important than Vim integration and such. Even CoffeeSc…
Closure docs are pretty thin, mostly extracted symbols from code, with cryptic or misleading explanations. But a least you have clickable API listings.
I have my complaints about the library (certain dusty corners of goog.ui and goog.editor have hard-coded CSS classNames and Google URLs, meaning you have to use a patch queue to customize them) but I'm very pleased with the API documentation and examples. Google admittedly leans on Bolin's book (O'Reilly, 2010) too much for the community's manual-style documentation, but this is less crucial for a library than the API docs, and that book is really good :^)
The library has an extensive demo collection which is pretty nice too, and the demos generally include a minimum of 2-3 examples to show different ways to use library components (decorating vs. rendering usage of goog.ui package, for instance).
Google's real failure with Closure Tools has been marketing, but that is not my concern very much as a user. However, I see how this affects the library's adoption, so I've created a page at https://oinksoft.com/closure-tools/irc/ (I op the IRC channel) where I hope to aggregate more resources over time so that new users are able to get up-and-running without using Bolin's book.
Say what you want about whether this is a good idea or not, it is clear at least part of MS is really serious about open source. * TypeScript is under the Apache 2.0 license [1] * Source is available via git on Codeplex [2] * Installation is as easy as npm install -g typescript [3] Extra bonus coolness: They've provided an online playground like jsfiddle! [4]. [1] http://typescript.codeplex.com/license [2] http://typ…
I have to admit I'm impressed with MS here. Contrast Dart and TS. Dart announced a year ago and they're only now dealing the JS interop issue, so to most people its still only really interesting as a play thing. TS announced and from the looks of if we choose to we can immediately start using it. I know Dart is more ambitious and maybe long term their focus on issues other than interop will be proved to be correct, b…
TypeScript doesn't have JS interop: it is JavaScript. TypeScript is basically JS linter with a type annotation syntax. (And a few additional local features like arrow functions and class syntax.)
That being said, we know on the Dart team that JS interop is hugely important. It's just much harder for us to do. We've just announced a big step in the right direction: http://www.dartlang.org/articles/js-dart-interop/
(Wikipedia) “Some examples, like Dart, portend that JavaScript has fundamental flaws and to support these scenarios requires a ‘clean break’ from JavaScript in both syntax and runtime. We disagree with this point of view.” - Microsoft’s JavaScript team If Google comes out with Dart, well, then there's no need for that. But it's ok for Microsoft to be secretly working on their own Javascript 2.0. Just sayin' - Why cri…
This is the first sign that they are "getting" 2012 developers and are back in the game with a vengeance. Hope it works.
Dart is mid-nineties MS by comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you have been happier with that? Yes. Google (and others) need to stop releasing half-baked products. You release something half-baked, even if it gets up to speed down the road, people will still have perceptions of it being half-baked. The above exchange is typical.
Imagine if Linus Torvalds shared your point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
JavaScript is forever stuck in design-by-committee hell, which dooms it long-term. Developers who do nothing but pure JavaScript and don't at least play around with the other options (Dart, TypeScript, Haxe, CoffeeScript, et al) are just going to be hurting themselves long-term. It is always a bad idea to tie yourself too strongly to any single language.
I don't know, ECMAScript 6 looks a lot like Coffeescript, and ECMAScript 6 modules look a lot like Node modules.
The fact that after all this time and efforts, ES6 won't be released for another year plus, speaks volumes about the "design by committee" thing.