State of the Art JavaScript in 2016

Post by spicyj » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

lomnakkus wrote: post #23

fleshweasel wrote: post #8

I strongly disagree about TypeScript-- I think it's a huge boon to productivity. TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. TypeScript also has optional interface members and function parameters by putting ? at the end of the name, i.e. "foo?: number". Static types allow for much, much better tooling, particularly autocomplete and the ability to check whether your…

> TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. I understand that you said "similar", but there's actually a big difference that should be mentioned explicitly, namely that algebraic data type (ADT) sums always have "constructors" which you can use to disambiguate with. That means that you can meaningfully do the equivalent of "int | int" whereas for union types that…

Post by fleshweasel » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:43 PM UTC

lomnakkus wrote: post #23

fleshweasel wrote: post #8

I strongly disagree about TypeScript-- I think it's a huge boon to productivity. TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. TypeScript also has optional interface members and function parameters by putting ? at the end of the name, i.e. "foo?: number". Static types allow for much, much better tooling, particularly autocomplete and the ability to check whether your…

> TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. I understand that you said "similar", but there's actually a big difference that should be mentioned explicitly, namely that algebraic data type (ADT) sums always have "constructors" which you can use to disambiguate with. That means that you can meaningfully do the equivalent of "int | int" whereas for union types that…

Post by fleshweasel » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:47 PM UTC

spicyj wrote: post #41

lomnakkus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. I understand that you said "similar", but there's actually a big difference that should be mentioned explicitly, namely that algebraic data type (ADT) sums always have "constructors" which you can use to disambiguate with. That means that you can meaningfully do the equivalent of "int | int" whereas for union types that…

Flow has pretty good support for tagged unions like this which act like ADTs: http://flowtype.org/blog/2015/07/03/Disjoint-Unions.html

Post by lomnakkus » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:49 PM UTC

fleshweasel wrote: post #43

lomnakkus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TypeScript has has union types i.e. "number | string" which are similar to algebraic data types. I understand that you said "similar", but there's actually a big difference that should be mentioned explicitly, namely that algebraic data type (ADT) sums always have "constructors" which you can use to disambiguate with. That means that you can meaningfully do the equivalent of "int | int" whereas for union types that…

Thanks for elaborating on the distinction. User defined type guards can get you some of the way there to distinguishing "int | int", but you don't get it for free-- the reality of being a superset of JavaScript. https://gist.github.com/RikkiGibson/74fa3dbfdb1b2d7ab86d

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:52 PM UTC

marknadal wrote: post #21

We all have our opinions and I would say take this article with a huge grain of salt (as well as my comment). State of the art javascript should still be considered a browser + editor + files. There is no need to overcomplicate things, and unfortunately Webpack and Babel do. It is terrifying to see javascript turn into the new Java - build steps and compile steps and configuration and everything you don't need except…