3 ms·
You're moving the goalposts. GP was concerned about MS nefariously introducing vendor lock-in by implementing a bunch of their own proprietary features. I've d
by johnfn 10y ago
You're moving the goalposts.
GP was concerned about MS nefariously introducing vendor lock-in by implementing a bunch of their own proprietary features. I've demonstrated pretty clearly that
1. It's not MS's implementation - it's an implementation of an ES proposal.
2. For the one example you could find, MS didn't even want to do it - it was requested by Google for Angular and done as essentially a compromise. If you browse the TS repository, you can find issue after issue of the TS team refusing to add features that aren't part of the ES standard.
I think this shows fairly definitively that this is not a case of MS trying to lock you in to their product.
- bakkoting 10y agoI'm not making a case for or against TypeScript; I'm just concerned that people be aware what is and is not part of JavaScript. You said that TypeScript had no additional features except types. That's all I'm responding to: I'm pointing out this isn't the case. Class fields are, currently, not part of JavaScript. Neither are decorators. (We're working on it - but actually a concern which has come up is that we might end up with something which breaks TypeScript, because the proposals are still in the early stages and therefore subject to radical changes.)