4 ms·

I have to disagree. For starters classes came from ES2015. They're an official, first class construct of JavaScript now, whether we like it or not. Decorators a

by city41 10y ago

I have to disagree. For starters classes came from ES2015. They're an official, first class construct of JavaScript now, whether we like it or not. Decorators are also from ECMAScript. Whether people use TypeScript or not, a lot of what you're complaining about is coming regardless. The visibility modifiers are optional, only checked at compile time, and quite frankly solve a problem that JS developers have been solving badly for a decade now. From "gentlemen's privates" (ie, if it starts with an underscore please don't touch it or rely on it!), to closures to CommonJS modules, all ridiculous contraptions essentially designed to give you some sense of privacy in the language. TypeScript doesn't have enums. Instead it allows you to restrict a string to a finite set of values. Which basically boils down to JavaScript "enums" with a dash of static typing thrown in. I have no doubt TypeScript tends to attract C# and Java developers. But that doesn't take away from the fact that TypeScript is a proper superset of JavaScript, it doesn't force you into a rigid class system at all (structural typing for the win), and really, truly is "JavaScript with types".

shados 10y ago
Decorators aren't in EcmaScript yet. And the ES standard changed since they were implemented in TS (I honestly don't know if TS changed to accomodate or if they're just mismatched now). TS sure as hell has something called "enum", which is NOT the same as their string literal types (those are good). I disagree about the privates: closures are perfectly good functional ways of handling them, and if you didn't want that, we have symbols now to do it for "real". And privates aren't terrible. Protected however are OOP bullshit. Though my primary point isn't in how its features are implemented: it's how they're advertised. That, to me, is what makes TypeScript "a C# for the web". It's implementation isn't terrible, especially if you stick to the "good parts". However, the "good parts" they advertise/encourages are javascript "bad parts.
- city41 10y ago
  Ah you're right, I forgot about the numeric enums. I was thinking strictly string based. I honestly think "protected" is not worth fussing over. Not to mention JS becomes more classically oriented every day. I predict ES2018 adds "protected" :) Anyway I honestly don't have much opinion on how they are marketing TS. The language itself is well done and that's all I really care about.

by city41 10y ago

shados 10y ago

Decorators aren't in EcmaScript yet. And the ES standard changed since they were implemented in TS (I honestly don't know if TS changed to accomodate or if they're just mismatched now). TS sure as hell has something called "enum", which is NOT the same as their string literal types (those are good). I disagree about the privates: closures are perfectly good functional ways of handling them, and if you didn't want that, we have symbols now to do it for "real". And privates aren't terrible. Protected however are OOP bullshit. Though my primary point isn't in how its features are implemented: it's how they're advertised. That, to me, is what makes TypeScript "a C# for the web". It's implementation isn't terrible, especially if you stick to the "good parts". However, the "good parts" they advertise/encourages are javascript "bad parts.

city41 10y ago
Ah you're right, I forgot about the numeric enums. I was thinking strictly string based. I honestly think "protected" is not worth fussing over. Not to mention JS becomes more classically oriented every day. I predict ES2018 adds "protected" :) Anyway I honestly don't have much opinion on how they are marketing TS. The language itself is well done and that's all I really care about.