3 ms·
I'm the author of the article. > I couldn't help reading the emphasized "types" in "optional types" as a yell for the Typescript developers to come back. Not
by filiph 11y ago
I'm the author of the article.
> I couldn't help reading the emphasized "types" in "optional types" as a yell for the Typescript developers to come back.
Not sure what you mean, but I definitely didn't have TypeScript in mind. I emphasized "optional" in "optional types" in the bulletpoint where I'm talking about "getting out of your way", and "type" in the next bulletpoint where I'm talking about structure. It was meant to be cute but evidently I failed... Sorry for the confusion.
- bovermyer 11y agoI got your meaning. I liked Dart enough to give a talk about it at the local Google user group a year or so ago. Sadly, I haven't touched it since; less because I fear that it's a dead/failed language, and more because I simply haven't found a use case for it where a language I already know better doesn't do an acceptable job.
- jug 11y agoHaha OK, I see it now. :)