71–80 of 570 posts
(I use Deno, but also use some npms.)
Bun’s DX is pretty unprecedented in this space, and most of my use cases are now covered / not causing Bun to crash (when actually using run-scripts with `bun run`). Meanwhile, I can’t configure node to not require extensions on import, nor have tsc configured to automatically add .js extensions to its compiled output, without adding on a bundler… although native TypeScript support would remedy this nit quite a bit,…
Extensions should be required. It's not possible to do path searches over the network like you can on local disk, and network-attached VMs, like browsers, are a very, very important runtime for JavaScript.
foo could mean foo/index.js, foo.js at the minimum. So you have 2x the lookups. Oh no, wait we also potentially have mjs, cjs, jsx, ts and tsx.
So 12 times the stat checking for each import.
My favorite deno feature is coming to node directly. Awesome! Maybe this means I don't always have to install esbuild to strip types - very excited how this will make writing scripts in TypeScript that much easier to use. I lately have been prefering Python for one off scripts, but I do think personally TypeScript > Python wrt types. And larger scripts really benefit from types especially when looking at them again a…
btw if anyone is looking to run ts on node, there is tsx. there is also ts-node but i prefer tsx. https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx
It's been a really eventful month for Node. First they added node:sqlite in v22.5.0, and now TypeScript support is landing. I love the direction Node is heading in.
I have mixed feelings about this. While I do use TS with Node.js today and absolutely like the concept, its type system is still far from something mature and stable like C#. We keep running into ceilings (EDIT: lack of completeness/depth, not lack of complexity) all the time, and TypeScript questions on Stack Overflow is basically a library of workarounds. Mostly bad ones. So if I worked on Node.js I would prefer it…
What's an example of a ceiling? Out of all the mass-market programming languages, TS arguably has the most advanced type system in the world. It's a modern marvel that they got it working on top of Javascript.
If you mean expressiveness or consistent or soundness then no, it’s actually very bad compared to almost anything else and I think the longer it goes on the more it starts to feel like a house of cards.
The upside I guess is that whenever Safari decides to get their shit together Web Assembly is well placed to get us out of the scenario where we are forced to use JS and as an extension Typescript at all for most things and actually good language choices with reliable type systems like Dart, Kotlin and C# all become viable options.
There is no way I’d choose JavaScript over those other options in the majority of scenarios unless I was forced to.
If Node.js can run TypeScript files directly, then the TypeScript compiler won't need to strip types and convert to JavaScript - it could be used solely as a type checker. This would be similar to the situation in Python, where type checkers check types and leave them intact, and the Python interpreter just ignores them. It's interesting, though, that this approach in Python has led to several (4?) different popular…
I think this should be part of the language spec.
Ok that's cool, but how about adding native support to browsers?
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations
So maybe we'll have support in another five years
... Or maybe we'll have "Support in another five years" in five years, who knows
I have mixed feelings about this. While I do use TS with Node.js today and absolutely like the concept, its type system is still far from something mature and stable like C#. We keep running into ceilings (EDIT: lack of completeness/depth, not lack of complexity) all the time, and TypeScript questions on Stack Overflow is basically a library of workarounds. Mostly bad ones. So if I worked on Node.js I would prefer it…
What's an example of a ceiling? Out of all the mass-market programming languages, TS arguably has the most advanced type system in the world. It's a modern marvel that they got it working on top of Javascript.
All other static languages start bottom up, simple to more complex, but end up getting boxed in by their own design. TypeScript started top down, trying to map itself on to a fully dynamic language. Never getting boxed in, just trying to 'fill' the box that is all the possibilities of JavaScript. 10 years on and TypeScript is still exciting, making significant updates and improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is "types as comments", not standardizing TypeScript.
It is explicitly not type as comments, it is type erasure
The point is that the types could be TypeScript, Flow, Hegel, or something else. The browser won't perform type checking, it will just ignore the types.
So, it is not standardising TypeScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This proposal aims to enable developers to add type annotations to their JavaScript code, allowing those annotations to be checked by a type checker that is external to JavaScript. At runtime, a JavaScript engine ignores them, treating the types as comments.
Yes, that’s explaining what type erasure is. “type as comments” is what Flow supports, literal comments for type annotations. I think we disagree on the terminology but agree on the goal of the proposal