231–240 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An important feature of TypeScript is identifying problems in your code before the user runs it, i.e. before a browser even comes into play.
No runtime type safety bites people often and in unexpected ways. It should just be standardized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you wrote it wrong is hilariously ironic. JavaScript is simply the better term, and marketing is everything. Reminds me of Java's POJOs, which was a very simple pattern that no one used, until someone gave them a fancy name. ECMAScript is a horrible technical name. Might as well call it ACMEScript considering how willie e. coyote it feels to develop with it...
> Might as well call it ACMEScript considering how willie e. coyote it feels to develop with it... And it would feel just the same if it was named something else. It's just a name, who gives a damn?
This is extremely ironic given that JavaScript was so named because people do give a damn about names so Netscape/Sun leveraged the Java success to push JS, hence they named it JAVAscript despite it having nothing to do with Java.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An important feature of TypeScript is identifying problems in your code before the user runs it, i.e. before a browser even comes into play.
So? If supported natively by the browser the browser could compile it on download. You'll still get all the strong typing without have to wait for it to run. For example an error in a little used branch would cause an error before the branch even runs.
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
That’s not retrocompatible with all the .js files out there though. One possibility is thus just make some vocalic derivation, which align with well known spontaneous evolution of languages like ablaut[1]. Following that, and keeping the dance connotation, jive [2] is an option. Or closer on phonetic distance to java (/ˈd͡ʒɑː.və/), there is jovial (/ˈd͡ʒəʊ.vɪ.əl/ or /ˈd͡ʒoʊ.vɪ.əl/ or /ˈd͡ʒoʊ.vəl/)[3]. Might our jovia…
I see that there's something called that related to javascript already, but like -- very similar spelling, ".js" still works, we lose the Java confusion etc etc.
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
EcmaScript is an awful name. It sounds too similar to eczema or ectoplasm. Ugly name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). Probably if we were in the early 2000s this could have been a battle worth fighting. But considering we're in 2025 and probably more people are aware of JavaScript than Java at this point, even when you're deep in enterprise-land, I'm not sure it'd be less confusing. Anyways, you're about two dec…
From days of old... Invoking Applet Methods From JavaScript Code - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in... and Invoking JavaScript Code From an Applet - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in... Aside from the "Java is cool, name everything Java" in the early days - there was scripting between the browser and the applet using a language named JavaScript.
1) Put JS in maintenance mode, don’t add any language features, only runtime 2) TS becomes the official mainline, whoever doesn’t like types can just keep writing as they did before, because valid JS is valid TS Problem solved, it’s not that difficult.
3) remove js and its derivatives from the internet, switch to lua or smth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was also beanshell if you remember, of course never as polished nor adopted like groovy but it was also fun to use.
Is groovy actually really "adopted" much of anywhere? I feel like for 99% of normal people, their only real exposure to it is as the DSL of gradle and jenkins. I can't imagine writing anything of substance primarily in groovy.
But just like with this JS trademark thing, it feels like they present themselves as spokespeople and spearhead for the whole JS community, which feels kind of misleading and grandiose.
The mentioned timeline site (link below) also has this issue: it slowly shifts focus from things like the first JS version, the creation of XMLHttpRequest, to later focusing on Deno milestones, as if these events would have had comparable impacts:
https://deno.com/blog/history-of-javascript
And that seems kind of dishonest and designed to nudge outsiders towards thinking Deno would be the default server runtime now, which doesn't seem to be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? If supported natively by the browser the browser could compile it on download. You'll still get all the strong typing without have to wait for it to run. For example an error in a little used branch would cause an error before the branch even runs.
So then the user gets a type error in their face instead of the page loading? That doesn't really sound better than the developer getting that error while writing the code, which is what TypeScript currently does.