2 ms·
At the risk of sounding like a JavaScript interviewer, define "this". The article was posted today, so I doubt that's what you're referring to. EDIT: My guess
by jdmichal 11y ago
At the risk of sounding like a JavaScript interviewer, define "this". The article was posted today, so I doubt that's what you're referring to.
EDIT: My guess would be that it was originally too focused in its use case as an ActionScript replacement for Flash. In current times, I would say that it has made the same mistake that everything other than TypeScript has: It tries to "fix" JavaScript / ECMAScript. That means learning yet another slightly-different thing, and also porting if it's not a new project. TypeScript has picked up a lot of momentum by taking the superset approach, allowing progressive enhancement of existing codebases. Just start throwing your JavaScript into the TypeScript compiler and you're done.
- larsiusprime 11y agoAre you sure it isn't also the fact that it's historically had a tiny community of open source hackers and TypeScript has all the momentum of MS behind it?
- jdmichal 11y agoI'm sure that also plays into it. Though DefinitelyTyped was started by someone who AFAIK is unaffiliated with MS, and I would say that is pretty critical to its success. I should have specified that the above is the reason I would choose TypeScript over Haxe now. There's a lot of times when I will prototype a project in vanilla JavaScript, then set up the TypeScript build infrastructure and start enhancing.
- yoklov 11y agoI don't think Haxe really is trying to fix JS, any more than it tries to fix C#, C++ or Java. It's similar enough to JS due to being a ES4 (ActionScript) derivative, but that's mostly a coincidence due to it's legacy.