3 ms·
ActionScript was a viable answer to introducing optional Types on JavaScript. NIH syndrome got this one.
by crudbug 10y ago
ActionScript was a viable answer to introducing optional Types on JavaScript. NIH syndrome got this one.
- Illniyar 10y agoI don't know if NIH is applicable here, ActionScript 3 adopted the optional type syntax of what was supposed to be ES4 , not the other way around (I think).
- Jasper_ 10y agoNah, ES4 was far more complex and R&D-y than what AS3 put out. AS3 was basically TypeScript. For a more complete idea of ES4's type system, see "Evolutionary Programming and Gradual Typing in ES4": http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/evolutionary-programming-tutorial.pdf http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/evolutionary-programming-...
- artjumble 10y agoIf I remember correctly, early proposals of the ES4 standard had a type system. It was later removed, but ActionScript continued down that path anyway.
- crudbug 10y agoDart / TypeScript / Flow are trying to fix the same problems. Also, I see React with JSX repeating what MXML (AS3) / FXML (JavaFX) did 10 years back.
- pitaj 10y agoFXML is only 5 years old, and acts more like HTML than JSX.
- darkmarmot 10y agoAdobe was pushing classes and types in ES4. From what I've heard, Microsoft sabotaged those efforts and Adobe continued on without them...
- throwow34393 10y agoAnd now MS is trying to replace JS with Typescript ... the irony. So much time wasted because of petty fighting and stupid egos if anybody remembers what happened around 2006/2007 with ES4. So much stupid people that slowed down Javascript's evolution, and the web in general. MS bears a huge responsibility in this.