Why does TypeScript have be the answer to anything?

Post by krohrbaugh » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #29

krohrbaugh wrote: post #28

First of all, I'm glad Microsoft is getting involved in this space. They have a deep talent pool when it comes to language design and tooling and it'll be interesting to see where TypeScript goes. Unfortunately, the arguments trying to draw some kind of monumental distinction between TypeScript, Dart and CoffeeScript are silly. They are all a response to the state of client-side development and are all applying essen…

> essentially the same strategy (i.e., some syntax changes and a pre-compiler) TypeScript and CoffeeScript, yes. Dart's a brand new C-like web language that is quite different, and has its own VM. Although, of course, you can still compile to JS. But unlike TypeScript and CoffeeScript, it isn't really an alternative syntax for JS, or annotations removed at compile-time.

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 5:03 PM UTC

krohrbaugh wrote: post #31

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> essentially the same strategy (i.e., some syntax changes and a pre-compiler) TypeScript and CoffeeScript, yes. Dart's a brand new C-like web language that is quite different, and has its own VM. Although, of course, you can still compile to JS. But unlike TypeScript and CoffeeScript, it isn't really an alternative syntax for JS, or annotations removed at compile-time.

Yes, I know and you are correct. At a high-level, though, and in the case where browsers are the target platform, those aspects are largely implementation details.

Post by jzelinskie » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 5:10 PM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #10

>Dart interops with JavaScript...but it's not JS. It doesn't even use the JavaScript number type for example. What is meant by this? As far as I know, the only way that you can use Dart in any browser currently is by compiling it to JS, and when you do that it most certainly does use native JS numbers. In fact, the type check function it creates for numbers contains this line: if (!(typeof value === 'number')) {

Post by zachrose » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

ajanuary wrote: post #18

dreamdu5t wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor state of JavaScript development? By what measure? I've been doing "application-scale" development using JavaScript for 5 years... Not once did I think "gee my development process would be better if I had rigid typing." The notion is laughable. The lack of rigid typing and classes is by design. This is a feature not a bug. I honestly wonder about a programmer's understanding of JavaScript if they say things like…

The type system in TypeScript isn't 'rigid'. It's both optional and structural. These combine to make it a heck of a lot more lightweight than something like C++ or Java. The classes in TypeScript are a formalisation of a very common design pattern in Javascript, so obviously people do think it's useful. TypeScript takes the common practice and makes it more succinct. (Other than inheritance, which does seem a little…

Post by drhowarddrfine » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC