4 ms·

Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. I guess TS being a superset of JS itself might be an advantage...otherwise it is still

by smegel 10y ago

Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. I guess TS being a superset of JS itself might be an advantage...otherwise it is still a new language designed for web browser programming unlike Java. I suppose it is a fair question why they didn't just use C#.

aikah 10y ago
> Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. Actually it did catch on in the enterprise world, just like Typescript. Will Microsoft be as "dedicated" as Google regarding its language? wait and see.
Cthulhu_ 10y ago
There's also Scala.js, which takes it even further than GWT. And of course Dart.
_pmf_ 10y ago
> Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. ClojureScript uses the Closure(sic) compiler from GWT to compile Clojure/Java to JavaScript (not that I defend this technological train wreck). > I suppose it is a fair question why they didn't just use C#. This would have been superb, but I think Microsoft wanted to show that they "get" web developers; just mentioning C# causes the JS pundit get jittery because someone wants to limit the amount of write-only code he is able to spit out.
- PretzelFisch 10y ago
  There were already open source projects that tried to do this some paid projects, but they never gained traction. Microsoft also had the hind sight of DART and GWT to help point them in the TypeScript direction.
- lennelpennel 10y ago
  >>Closure(sic) compiler from GWT false. Closure does not compile java to js and closjurescript does not use any tech from gwt. Clojurescript compiles to JS itself and then uses the Closure compiler (which is an incredible piece of tech) to compile js to js (not transpile, but actual compile).
- greendragon 10y ago
  What exactly don't you like about ClojureScript? The tooling may be kind of weird (and I believe you're out of date) but once you're set up with figwheel and something like om/reagent/re-frame you start approaching the bottom-up, truly dynamic, interactive approach to building things. Every time I hear stories of "we couldn't scale our JS until we switched to TS" it's always the case of they were developing their JS in IDEs and structured similarly to a Java application, but without having to declare types and having slightly nicer data literals...

by smegel 10y ago

aikah 10y ago

> Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. Actually it did catch on in the enterprise world, just like Typescript. Will Microsoft be as "dedicated" as Google regarding its language? wait and see.

Cthulhu_ 10y ago

There's also Scala.js, which takes it even further than GWT. And of course Dart.

_pmf_ 10y ago

> Well Google already did that with Java and GWT, but it never caught on. ClojureScript uses the Closure(sic) compiler from GWT to compile Clojure/Java to JavaScript (not that I defend this technological train wreck). > I suppose it is a fair question why they didn't just use C#. This would have been superb, but I think Microsoft wanted to show that they "get" web developers; just mentioning C# causes the JS pundit get jittery because someone wants to limit the amount of write-only code he is able to spit out.

PretzelFisch 10y ago
There were already open source projects that tried to do this some paid projects, but they never gained traction. Microsoft also had the hind sight of DART and GWT to help point them in the TypeScript direction.
lennelpennel 10y ago
>>Closure(sic) compiler from GWT false. Closure does not compile java to js and closjurescript does not use any tech from gwt. Clojurescript compiles to JS itself and then uses the Closure compiler (which is an incredible piece of tech) to compile js to js (not transpile, but actual compile).
greendragon 10y ago
What exactly don't you like about ClojureScript? The tooling may be kind of weird (and I believe you're out of date) but once you're set up with figwheel and something like om/reagent/re-frame you start approaching the bottom-up, truly dynamic, interactive approach to building things. Every time I hear stories of "we couldn't scale our JS until we switched to TS" it's always the case of they were developing their JS in IDEs and structured similarly to a Java application, but without having to declare types and having slightly nicer data literals...