4 ms·
There's interesting data but the personal opinions seem weirdly shallow. --- "I was predicting that once all good features of TypeScript end up in JavaScript
by williamdclt 7y ago
There's interesting data but the personal opinions seem weirdly shallow.
---
"I was predicting that once all good features of TypeScript end up in JavaScript itself, it would be discarded just like CoffeeScript"
There's almost no "feature of Typescript" apart from typing. We have "?." and "??" now, but that's almost it? Building features on top of JS has always been a non-goal.
Also, "My thoughts on TypeScript did not change, of course" - why "of course"? It's nothing obvious, and revising your opinion is always wise
- soygul 7y agoI would expect more things (especially on typing and classes) to be ported to JS. That's what I meant. At least, private/static fields, optional chaining & null coalescing (as you pointed out), default parameters are now in JS (almost). I'll add them to the article to make it more clear.
- diggan 7y agoPersonally, I'd prefer it if both typing and classes was not in JS, as the problems they solve can also be solved in other ways. Now I already lost the battle around classes but if types somehow becomes mandatory in JS proper, I'd probably leave JS behind me. Now, mandatory typing will never happen in JS and I already kind of left JS behind for ClojureScript, so guess I'm in luck there.