6 ms·
I love TypeScript, but one thing that I find increasingly irksome is the phenomenon of TypeScript advocates who present a dismissive attitude towards workflows
by 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 agoI 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 agoActually 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 agoTypeScript 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 agoNot sure I understand that. Bublé does require transpilation, doesn't it? It's just easier to configure than Babel, which is notoriously painful.