Why not Dart?
There is a Dart version:
Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
91–100 of 235 posts
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#92Is javascript really so bad? Edit: Why did this question get down voted? It was an honest question...
Yes, it is really, really, really bad. http://wtfjs.com Whole web is a mess and people are trying to monkey-patch it.
This list has some weird examples. It's like the author makes some crazy requirements for Javascript.
For example, I don't think it's particularly bad that array[-1] and array.charAt(-1) return different values.
Also, I don't get the Math.Max() example with booleans. Seems perfectly logical to me.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#93"Special shout out to Yehuda Katz, who helped us design the annotation+decorator proposal which helped make this work possible."
How in the world does this man keep up with all these projects? He needs to write a book on motivation.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transpiling may actually be the safest way to use JavaScript, especially given its rate of change. Take, for instance, a number of features trickling down the ECMA2015 pipe: modules, classes, "let", etc. Using these features without a transpiler, such as Babel, is simply not possible. A transpiler allows you to use these features now without any worry. Not all transpilers may be to your taste, but they have their pla…
> Transpiling may actually be the safest way to use JavaScript, especially given its rate of change. [..] A transpiler allows you to use these features now without any worry. I disagree and my original statement applies as much to TypeScript as it does to an ECMAScript 6 transpiler. If you want to use the new features and you're transpiling now you need to have a good understanding of the differences between ECMAScri…
I feel more comfortable writing TypeScript rather than using an ES6 transpiler, really. The compiler is built really well - you can observe the team's development process on github and I have to say the level is quite impressive (extensive code reviews and great discussions on the issue tracker).
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#95As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?
Would you complain if a c++ project started using c++/14 features, because "now you need to learn c++/14 to contribute or grok the source files?" Typescript is really just Javascript with type checking, and what would be used in browsers if they didn't have to deal with backwards compatibility.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#96Are there any organized efforts to fork the 1.x branch to sustain existing applications?
Not so much to fork, but Angular 1.x is continuing to be developed and Pete Bacon Darwin has taken over as the technical lead: https://plus.google.com/+IgorMinar/posts/2Uo6yh4AV7L
Angular 1.4 is well underway and there's a lot of good stuff coming out of it, for example the reworked router module.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, but that's a legitimate concern. Even with Microsoft's recent open source moves (which I think are pretty awesome), we've had a history of having Microsoft force languages and extensions down our throat in an attempt to usurp the open web and standards: ActiveX, VBScript in IE, .hta's, Silverlight, etc. The counter to that is that TypeScript is Apache-licensed. However, you can't erase history by throwing u…
Ironically your comment could be taken as a classic example of the kind of FUD Microsoft used to spread. You give examples from the past that, you admit, clearly don't apply. You talk about "feels less open" when it is factually not. You speculate on others (who are they?) being pushed past a tipping point. Doubt, doubt, doubt and fear, fear, fear when in fact there's nothing you can point to in reality to back it up…
Your response seems defensive. I'm not speaking to Microsoft's motives, but to the psychology of developers who have been exposed to "embrace, extend, extinguish" for many years. They don't deserve trust just because "we're nice now, we promise".
The same way that Google's shuttering of services over and over earns them a bit of discomfort amongst their users.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#98As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?
Would you complain if a c++ project started using c++/14 features, because "now you need to learn c++/14 to contribute or grok the source files?" Typescript is really just Javascript with type checking, and what would be used in browsers if they didn't have to deal with backwards compatibility.
I don't think that analogy is valid. It's more like if a C++ project started using a bunch of proprietary third-party language extensions, in which case, yes, I would complain because I have to learn some non-standard C++ derivative in order to be able to read the source code.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure that TypeScript just adds type safety and is optional. I don't see this as a huge negative and I actually see this as a positive. Just curious, what and why are all your reasons to move away from Angular?
If type safety was the issue, couldn't they have tried Facebook's Flow[1] which believe would have reduced the technical overhead by large? [1]: http://flowtype.org/
Flow doesn't work on Windows yet. Atom seems to be the only editor which supports it. That plugin had its 2nd release just 3 days ago.
Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript
#100As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?
This is the main reason why I don't like using languages that transpile into JavaScript. I don't mind the languages themselves but transpiling into JavaScript now means you have to be effective in both languages instead of one to properly debug and you're also subjected to bugs that may or may not be known in the transpile itself. Everyone seems to hate on JavaScript but it's really not that bad to use.
Some people really like static type checking.