Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TypeScript 7

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#241

Post by lobofta »

zeroq wrote: post #186
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

In 2004 we solved the types for JS with ECMAScript 4 (or ActionScript 2.0). Unfortunately this was in the middle of browser wars, so no one cared about the standards and all of that work was lost like tears in rain. Around that time I attended MS conference where they introduced IntelliSense and it was a forming experience for myself. You could do actual programming basically with , , arrow keys and . "x = " and ther…

God, do you remember that presentation Google gave when they introduced Angular 2.0? I think it was December 2015. It was sooo bad that in my eyes it killed Angular's momentum almost completely. I am surprised that it is still around actually. Can't find it anywhere though. Google must've censored it of the internet :)

Re: TypeScript 7

#242

Post by jeswin »

lioeters wrote: post #204
jeswin wrote: post #194

Congrats on launch. The code is beautiful, and the test suite is quite solid. Over the past year, I've been working on porting the v7 tsgo compiler back into TypeScript - https://github.com/tsoniclang/tsts It's fully functional now, but 2x slower than the original tsc and 10x slower than tsgo. But hopefully in a month or so, we'll get to C# and Rust targets and it should be able to compile itself to become nearly as…

That tsts project looks very interesting. I suppose there are various practical reasons for doing this. For me I'm just glad to see an easy way to run the newest TypeScript compiler (and I guess type checker?) in the browser. There's an unofficial Wasm build of tsgo/ts7, if I recall was about 12Mb. Another advantage of tsts I imagine is the ease of diving into the compiler internals as it's running (interpreted) inst…

Thanks. The idea is that many projects (including tsts itself) can be run unmodified on a JS runtime, or as a native binary via NativeAOT/C# or Rust.

Re: TypeScript 7

#243

Post by voihannena »

dymk wrote: post #97
tiffanyh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TypeScript just gets in the way of that for me. Not just because it requires an explicit compile step, but because it pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard, and things that are hard become `any`. No thanks! That comment is expected by a Ruby enthusiast, which is arguably one of…

I'm a Ruby enthusiast - Sorbet is one of the best things since sliced bread to happen to the ecosystem. matz is pushing hard on static typing as part of the standard Ruby ecosystem as well.

Wow, never heard about Sorbet before, looks good! I was a Ruby developer around ten years ago, and never stopped liking the language. I have moved into functional programming since, with strong types like Haskell, and do appreciate compile time type checking nowadays. Sorbet seems like a nice compromise here though!

Re: TypeScript 7

#244

Post by cubefox »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #183
nicoburns wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Type systems just used to be bad. Anything that forces you to use a class hierarchy to represent an "OR" type (sum types) is painful to work with. Modern languages like TypeScript / Rust / Swift / Kotlin that have sum types are dramatically much nicer.

Algorithm W is 40 years old and HM has vastly better ergonomics than TS's types. Why certain approaches didn't catch on until recently, or ever, is an interesting thing to think about but "we didn't know how" is not the story here.

The "or" (and "and") types in TypeScript are set theoretic rather than algebraic, so they don't require wrapping and unwrapping. It seems to me that they are the ones with better ergonomics.

Re: TypeScript 7

#246

Post by knocte »

kstrauser wrote: post #42
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't recall anyone disliking types . Lots of people disliked static typing , or more directly static, explicit typing . For instance, I've been around many conversations over the years where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension. There are some genuinely untyped languages…

> Python is strongly typed

Get the f*ck outta here.

Re: TypeScript 7

#248

Post by IshKebab »

kstrauser wrote: post #42
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't recall anyone disliking types . Lots of people disliked static typing , or more directly static, explicit typing . For instance, I've been around many conversations over the years where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension. There are some genuinely untyped languages…

> I don't recall anyone disliking types. Lots of people disliked static typing

Come on, that was very clearly what he was talking about. No need to be this pedantic.

Re: TypeScript 7

#249

Post by MrJohz »

jbritton wrote: post #170
MrJohz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also true of Python, though, which is traditionally considered a strongly typed language. I'm increasingly convinced that "strong/weak" has no useful meaning. Some people regularly use it interchangeably with "static/dynamic", others use it to vaguely refer to how much casting exists in a language, or how easy it is to transmute a value of one type into a value of a different type. There is no academic definit…

My understanding of weak typing is about allowing automatic type conversion. “3” + 1 === “31”, 1 + “3” === 4. Strong typing doesn’t auto convert.

This is one of the more common definitions, yes, but it's not used very consistently. The comment I replied to used a different definition, and I also commonly see the definition that weak typing is the ability to convert a type from one form to another (à la C).

Like I said, if you're going to talk about automatic type conversion, then calling it "automatic type conversion" is probably the simplest option - strong vs weak typing doesn't really need to come into it. Then you avoid any definitional confusion.

Post reply on HN