TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
blogs.msdn.com
TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#2I really love TypeScript because one of the projects goals is to become redundant one day. They're building what they hope JavaScript will get to evolve into.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#3I hope they'll integrate a JavaScript debugger to TypeScript and Visual Studio, possibly with source mapping. (I would specifically need Node.js debugging).
I also hope that they make a better module system.. currently it's pretty confusing and I don't really know how to differentiate between TypeScript and Node.js modules.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#4I hope they'll integrate a JavaScript debugger to TypeScript and Visual Studio, possibly with source mapping. (I would specifically need Node.js debugging). I also hope that they make a better module system.. currently it's pretty confusing and I don't really know how to differentiate between TypeScript and Node.js modules.
I think that's the point, there is no difference between TypeScript and Node.js Modules.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#5I couldn't be more underwhelmed by what TypeScript has to offer vs vanilla JavaScript or CoffeeScript.
Reading through the marketing material from MS it seems like the entire value proposition is "statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program, also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost"
I suppose if you believe those claims or are really interested in using MS development tools, TypeScript is for you.
IMO, ClojureScript is much more interesting and has a far greater value proposition for complex front-end development.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#6I really love TypeScript because one of the projects goals is to become redundant one day. They're building what they hope JavaScript will get to evolve into.
That's not entirely true. While TypeScript is closely aligning itself with the proposed ES6 syntax for classes and modules, there is no expectation that ECMAScript will add optional static type checking. If you want statically typed JavaScript you are always going to need something like TypeScript.
With that said, as ES6 evolves and becomes more widely supported there will be aspects of the TypeScript compiler that will no longer be needed (e.g. classes, modules, fat arrow functions, etc.).
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#7I couldn't be more underwhelmed by what TypeScript has to offer vs vanilla JavaScript or CoffeeScript. Reading through the marketing material from MS it seems like the entire value proposition is "statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program, also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost" I suppose if you believe those claims or are really interested in using MS development tools, Ty…
> ...also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost
I believe EcmaScript 6 plans on adding the class keyword and TypeScript's implementation reflects the current draft of how classes in ES6 will work.
> ...statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program...
Out of curiosity, do you normally program using statically typed languages?
If not, I can see why you would be underwhelmed. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. This is Hacker News and TypeScript is by Microsoft.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#8I really love TypeScript because one of the projects goals is to become redundant one day. They're building what they hope JavaScript will get to evolve into.
That's not entirely true. While TypeScript is closely aligning itself with the proposed ES6 syntax for classes and modules, there is no expectation that ECMAScript will add optional static type checking. If you want statically typed JavaScript you are always going to need something like TypeScript. With that said, as ES6 evolves and becomes more widely supported there will be aspects of the TypeScript compiler that w…
> If you want statically typed JavaScript you are always going to need something like TypeScript.
I think that is a valid statement only within the context of the next ECMA release. In other words, that's not to say that whichever successive version after ES6 can't include it, or any version thereafter.
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#9I couldn't be more underwhelmed by what TypeScript has to offer vs vanilla JavaScript or CoffeeScript. Reading through the marketing material from MS it seems like the entire value proposition is "statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program, also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost" I suppose if you believe those claims or are really interested in using MS development tools, Ty…
> ...also we added the class keyword so you don't feel lost I believe EcmaScript 6 plans on adding the class keyword and TypeScript's implementation reflects the current draft of how classes in ES6 will work. > ...statically typed languages make it easier to think about your program... Out of curiosity, do you normally program using statically typed languages? If not, I can see why you would be underwhelmed. Then aga…
[deleted]
Re: TypeScript and the Road to 1.0
#10Does optional typing really work? I've always felt (or presumed) that once you start putting types in, it kinda starts spreading everywhere and eventually will look like full static typing. I'd rather have tests than types.
It is good to see people try different things though, so congrats on release.