4 ms·
Coffeescript definitely felt soooo much nicer to work with than JS at the time. Writing in Coffeescript back in 2012 felt like Typescript does now, where going
by chanind 6y ago
Coffeescript definitely felt soooo much nicer to work with than JS at the time. Writing in Coffeescript back in 2012 felt like Typescript does now, where going back to working in base JS felt miserable after using it. ES6 took a lot of ideas from coffeescript which basically made it redundant. I wonder if the same will happen to Typescript if types get added into a future version of JS? We'll probably have another post about switching a massive codebase off Typescript onto whatever the next big thing is.
- danenania 6y agoTypeScript almost seems designed to be transitional, and I say that as a huge fan and heavy user of TS. Gradual typing is fantastic for learning, porting a codebase, and interop with JS libraries, but as TS gets more ubiquitous and everyone goes toward strict mode, people are going to start wanting runtime enforcement of types, and to stop adding a ‘type’ or ‘tag’ or whatever metadata key to all their objects. After getting a taste of a good type system, people naturally want to go all the way. If TS doesn’t figure out how to provide this in a nice way, I imagine there will be a fork or a new dialect eventually, or JS will get types added natively like you say, and lots of people will move in that direction.
- DanRosenwasser 6y agoThis gets brought up a lot - but I work on both TypeScript and within TC39. Adding a type system needs consensus from the committee, and ideally we would never leave the existing community behind (because that'd be a standardization failure) and at some point someone will need to implement the static type checking portion. Who would do that apart from existing type-checkers? A team like TypeScript, that's who. :)