Deno will stop using TypeScript

Post by shirshak55 » Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #94

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lisp is not popular. Remove the browser practical monopoly, and JS popularity would vanish.

I disagree on the current sentiment but agree that browser monopoly pushed js on people. If js didn't evolve over the last few years (since es5), I would have believed removing it from the browser would kill it. Right now, you have options to avoid writing js at all. There might be some glue code in js but you can write vast majority of your code in other languages and target js. People still choose to write in js. P…

Post by stickfigure » Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #89

echelon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to write as many tests when you use static typing, because your method contracts are solid. You can refactor your entire codebase with a few operations and don't have to worry about anything breaking. Is your timestamp in seconds? Millis? Is it a duration? Does it have a time zone? Have you ever written a method that returns more than one type of thing? Or had polymorphic inputs? Where are your dynamic…

You don't have to write as many tests when you use static typing, because your method contracts are solid. People often say this, and I don't get it. What JS tests are you writing that become unnecessary in TypeScript? I've used a fair amount of TypeScript and plain JS, and end up with similar amounts of tests for each. With JS, I almost never want to verify only that a value is of a specific type; I want to look at…

    function doSomething(thing) { ... }

Post by shirshak55 » Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #110

mimixco wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lisp is large, important, and also not statically typed. It's worked out ok for Lisp programmers. JS itself isn't strongly typed and is the most successful and important language in the world (probably in the history of programming), so that's two game-changers that don't require static typing.

javascripts success is an accident of history and we have paid a heavy price for it

Post by shirshak55 » Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #37

echelon wrote: post #14

Why such a large, important project would want to drop static types is beyond me. > TypeScript isn’t proving itself helpful to organize Deno code. On the contrary, the Deno team is experiencing the opposite effect. One of the issues mentioned is that they ended up with duplicate independent Body classes in two locations This feels like process immaturity or unfamiliarity. Thousands of other projects manage to do just…

This is enough reason for me to completely forget Deno. They clearly cannot write code or organize it without using classes, which is the core of their current error. The fact that they would choose that stupidity over the organizational benefits of interfaces and static types is not something I can reconcile.

Post by dboreham » Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #114

snarfy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For dynamically typed languages, the idea is you make up for that class of bugs by incorporating TDD and having lots and lots of unit tests. So, instead of waiting a minute for the typescript compiler, you wait for the engineer to write tests.

and you wait a minute for the tests to run every time you commit a change