4 ms·

Interesting, but not sure why you'd ever use this instead of TypeScript. TS has most everything this has - including real ease-of-use compared to Babel - plus a

Interesting, but not sure why you'd ever use this instead of TypeScript. TS has most everything this has - including real ease-of-use compared to Babel - plus a lot of additional stuff that's critical for large code bases. And its semantics are very clearly defined.

cdata 10y ago
I love TypeScript, but one thing that I find increasingly irksome is the phenomenon of TypeScript advocates who present a dismissive attitude towards workflows that don't include TypeScript. Why would I ever use this instead of TypeScript? A totally reasonable answer to this question is that I don't want my JavaScript sources to require transpilation before they will run in a modern browser.
- rich_harris 10y ago
  > I don't want my JavaScript sources to require transpilation before they will run in a modern browser. Exactly this. Bublé is designed to become increasingly redundant as node and browsers progress, until one day you can just remove it from your stack altogether. Planned obsolescence is an underrated feature in software
  - smrtinsert 10y ago
    I think you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_compatibility and not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence.
    - rich_harris 10y ago
      Actually now that I read both definitions, neither is quite right. Perhaps a better metaphor would be dissolvable stitches – you need them when your wound is open, but once it heals the stitches vanish. If anyone can help me out with a less gross version of the same metaphor I'd be grateful!
  - whatever_dude 10y ago
    TypeScript was announced exactly like this - being "Future JavaScript, now" and the promise that in an ideal world it would disappear. (It has since grown a lot and added a lot of modern features that are not guaranteed to be in JavaScript in the future, but I think the point still stands.)
- smithkl42 10y ago
  Not sure I understand that. Bublé does require transpilation, doesn't it? It's just easier to configure than Babel, which is notoriously painful.
tracker1 10y ago
ease of use is not something I'd say of TS... especially when mixing in JS.. there's what 2-3 options for how to handle your type mapping to JS libraries? I tried to use TS to create a simple ng2 app, as I wanted to understand the configuration, I looked at multiple boilerplate examples and it was all a mess imho. Even then, I don't blame TS for most of it... but the typedef tooling really should be in the box, and have a standard construct for usage. In the end, for my example above, I used babel with some flow plugins, and it worked well enough.

cdata 10y ago

I love TypeScript, but one thing that I find increasingly irksome is the phenomenon of TypeScript advocates who present a dismissive attitude towards workflows that don't include TypeScript. Why would I ever use this instead of TypeScript? A totally reasonable answer to this question is that I don't want my JavaScript sources to require transpilation before they will run in a modern browser.

rich_harris 10y ago
> I don't want my JavaScript sources to require transpilation before they will run in a modern browser. Exactly this. Bublé is designed to become increasingly redundant as node and browsers progress, until one day you can just remove it from your stack altogether. Planned obsolescence is an underrated feature in software
- smrtinsert 10y ago
  I think you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_compatibility and not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence.
  - rich_harris 10y ago
    Actually now that I read both definitions, neither is quite right. Perhaps a better metaphor would be dissolvable stitches – you need them when your wound is open, but once it heals the stitches vanish. If anyone can help me out with a less gross version of the same metaphor I'd be grateful!
- whatever_dude 10y ago
  TypeScript was announced exactly like this - being "Future JavaScript, now" and the promise that in an ideal world it would disappear. (It has since grown a lot and added a lot of modern features that are not guaranteed to be in JavaScript in the future, but I think the point still stands.)
smithkl42 10y ago
Not sure I understand that. Bublé does require transpilation, doesn't it? It's just easier to configure than Babel, which is notoriously painful.

tracker1 10y ago

ease of use is not something I'd say of TS... especially when mixing in JS.. there's what 2-3 options for how to handle your type mapping to JS libraries? I tried to use TS to create a simple ng2 app, as I wanted to understand the configuration, I looked at multiple boilerplate examples and it was all a mess imho. Even then, I don't blame TS for most of it... but the typedef tooling really should be in the box, and have a standard construct for usage. In the end, for my example above, I used babel with some flow plugins, and it worked well enough.