3 ms·
You mean in TS? Yes. ∀ x: I can do x in JS → I can do x in TS But, let's assume for a second that you couldn't: this thread is about TS being future-proof. I.
by nothrabannosir 11y ago
You mean in TS?
Yes. ∀ x: I can do x in JS → I can do x in TS
But, let's assume for a second that you couldn't: this thread is about TS being future-proof. I.e.: ∃ x: I can do x in TS & I cannot do x in JS? No, false.
This implies TS = JS. And that's the point: semantically, TS = JS.
- Roboprog 11y agoOK, that's a good start. Is there a tool analogous to JSDoc for TypeScript that gathers the same docs without repeating the type info already in the code?
- elisee 11y agohttp://typedoc.io/ http://typedoc.io/ might be what you're looking for.
- Roboprog 11y agoThanks. Also, some informative samples of what TypeScript itself looks like. https://github.com/sebastian-lenz/typedoc/blob/master/src/lib/application.ts https://github.com/sebastian-lenz/typedoc/blob/master/src/li...