4 ms·

I wonder if some of the people here, that like Typescript just fine, would consider less main-stream typed-js solution. I.e. Elm, ReasonML/ocaml/bucklescript,

I wonder if some of the people here, that like Typescript just fine, would consider less main-stream typed-js solution. I.e. Elm, ReasonML/ocaml/bucklescript, Purescript, Haskell with ghcjs, Rust with web-assembly compilation, or even wasm from Go? I am somebody who really likes to dabble, but is not a fronted person, so I am thinking, what would make you consider switching?

maaaats 8y ago
What I mainly liked about TS is that it's basically plain js with some typeinfo sprinkled on top. So no barrier of entry for existing js developers. Now I work on a project with Elm for the frontend. It's not as easy to just jump into, so wouldn't use it for a project where lots of developers sometimes have to make additions. But once up to speed, Elm is great.
hahamrfunnyguy 8y ago
I know a lot of languages already, so unless there is a significant advantage to using a given language I'd probably pick one of the many I know already. Typescript has significant advantages over vanilla JS, so that's why I use it. If those other options offered a significant improvement over Typescript AND said features were something I needed, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. For now, getting better at the languages I already know seems like a better use of time.
virtualwhys 8y ago
> I wonder if some of the people here, that like Typescript just fine, would consider less main-stream typed-js solution. Would love to but TypeScript integrates so seamlessly with JavaScript the language, and the ecosystem, that it's difficult to justify using my preferred language (Scala/Scala.js). Another thing to note is that working TypeScript with JavaScript feels idiomatic; I can't say that for any other typed-to-js language I've seen or worked with. Finally, the ecosystem, this is the deal breaker. With TypeScript it's similar to languages on the JVM, you get a huge ecosystem for free. The alternative is manually writing wrappers/interfaces for JavaScript libraries, or, if you're lucky, interface generators are available, but even then there are often caveats/tweaks required to get things working as expected.

maaaats 8y ago

What I mainly liked about TS is that it's basically plain js with some typeinfo sprinkled on top. So no barrier of entry for existing js developers. Now I work on a project with Elm for the frontend. It's not as easy to just jump into, so wouldn't use it for a project where lots of developers sometimes have to make additions. But once up to speed, Elm is great.

hahamrfunnyguy 8y ago

I know a lot of languages already, so unless there is a significant advantage to using a given language I'd probably pick one of the many I know already. Typescript has significant advantages over vanilla JS, so that's why I use it. If those other options offered a significant improvement over Typescript AND said features were something I needed, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. For now, getting better at the languages I already know seems like a better use of time.

virtualwhys 8y ago

> I wonder if some of the people here, that like Typescript just fine, would consider less main-stream typed-js solution. Would love to but TypeScript integrates so seamlessly with JavaScript the language, and the ecosystem, that it's difficult to justify using my preferred language (Scala/Scala.js). Another thing to note is that working TypeScript with JavaScript feels idiomatic; I can't say that for any other typed-to-js language I've seen or worked with. Finally, the ecosystem, this is the deal breaker. With TypeScript it's similar to languages on the JVM, you get a huge ecosystem for free. The alternative is manually writing wrappers/interfaces for JavaScript libraries, or, if you're lucky, interface generators are available, but even then there are often caveats/tweaks required to get things working as expected.