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

TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

typescriptlang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 316 posts

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#271

Post by jasondenizac »

edwinnathaniel wrote: post #265
georgemcbay wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JavaScript is forever stuck in design-by-committee hell, which dooms it long-term. Developers who do nothing but pure JavaScript and don't at least play around with the other options (Dart, TypeScript, Haxe, CoffeeScript, et al) are just going to be hurting themselves long-term. It is always a bad idea to tie yourself too strongly to any single language.

Conversely it's a bad idea to spread yourself thin in multiple languages but master of none. Having said that, I'm pretty much tied to Java since 2000 and haven't seen anything wrong... yet. In fact, I'm determined to get better in Java everyday (memory model, JVM, concurrency, better design, etc). Side note: I'm also learning pure "modern" JS just because there's no choice on the client-side.

Actually, it's quite easy to write for the client in most languages targetting javascript. Certainly it's the case for CoffeeScript, and TypeScript looks even better in that regard since it's a strict superset.

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#272

Post by medikoo »

camus wrote: post #57
arturadib wrote: post #49

All of these compile-to-JS efforts are great, and as much as I love things like CoffeeScript I have to say I definitely worry about language fragmentation. JavaScript is full of flaws, but its monopoly in the browser space has brought about one intriguing and welcome side-effect: a VERY efficient market for both employers and employees. It's easy to overlook how important this common denominator has been for everyone…

Javascript is dreadfull , and its flaws are counter productive and intolerable. It has good things like closures and first class functions , and that's it. Most of js developpers hate javascript , but are forced to work with it. So they dont care what they use as client language provided it gets the job done. few people cares about Javascript. most of the devs hate it. But the browser as dev plateform is a fact.

JavaScript is my main language since about 5 years, and I love it. I know a lot JavaScript developers and honestly I don't know any that "hate" the language, about 80% are very passionate about it, for rest is just tool to achieve the goals.

JavaScript has minor flaws but in general when understood it's outstanding. However it's not the style that you've been taught in school (OOP) and that's the problem for many newcomers.

It looks that you're just frustrated with something and want whole world to be as well, it won't work. Try CoffeeScript, it's much more approachable when coming from OOP world, then when you get how JavaScript works and understand it makes sense, you'll be ready to program in it directly.

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#273

Post by dogada »

One of the key TypeScript features is not only the fact that JavaScript program is TypeScript programs but also ability to add type annotations to existing javascript libraries without changing of their source code. For example, see port of Backbone's TodoMVC: http://typescript.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/...

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#276

Post by bbayer »

yet another language compiled to javascript. What is the deal with the adding type system without doing runtime checks? Does it solve DOM manipulation complexity or it just solve code readability problem? Does it worth to learn new language constructs when you decide to begin low or middle scale projects?

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#278

Post by highace »

Mpdreamz wrote: post #193
skrebbel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly the same story here. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I feel that while most tech BigCos (e.g. Google, Apple) have become more evil over time, MS has actually become less evil, to the point that using their tech (and some major tech at that) is relatively free of any lock-in risk. TypeScript seems very much in line with this trend, and I love it. This is exactly what I wanted - JavaScript but with decen…

Magic strings can be avoided by always using a viewmodel ,using the lamda overloads on HtmlHelper (@Html.*) also T4MVC is a godsend strongly typing routes, url lookups, viewnames, filenames. Most of these have been around since MVC 1.0. Hope these pointers will keep you magic string free :)

Adding T4MVC is the first thing I do on a new project. It makes pretty much all the magic strings disappear.

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#279

Post by repsilat »

nahname wrote: post #230
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language itself is broken, especially when it comes to equality, type coercion, `arguments`, and Date processing.

I think you mean, when only looking at those things. Outside of hoisting, you just listed all of the issues. Even hoisting is only an issue when you start polluting the global namespace.

Depending on who you are you can also complain about scoping rules, the object model, semicolon insertion and more general syntactic complaints, speed, access to native APIs and so on. One language is never going to be all things to all people.

Re: TypeScript: a language for application-scale JavaScript development

#280

Post by lusr »

btilly wrote: post #266
kenjackson wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. On Microsoft's own site they have http://support.microsoft.com/kb/93362 which does not list 4.0. I see 4.0 listed on the page. It's right at the bottom -- twice.

Yes, they list the advice in the article as applying to NT 4.0. And the advice on access controls does apply there. But the only sentences stating that specific versions have actually received C2 type certifications are in the summary. And the statement there is that 3.5 was certified as of 1995 in the USA, and 3.5.1 was given a E3/F-C2 rating in the UK. Nowhere in that article does it say that any version of 4.0 eve…

There's no need to guess about any of this:

"SAIC's Center for Information Security Technology, an authorized TTAP Evaluation Facility, has performed the evaluation of Microsoft's claim that the security features and assurances provided by Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6a and the C2 Update with networking meet the C2 requirements of the Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) dated December 1985." [1]

Anyway isn't all of this missing the point that the TCSEC C* requirements didn't really amount to much anyway? It's a pity no general purpose operating systems were ever evaluated to A1 criteria, and that that the Common Criteria haven't lead to systems like EROS/Coyotos/Capros receiving more development attention.

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20060503192159/http://www.radium....

Post reply on HN