4 ms·
I think that's just proof that "the next future" of web development is going to be owned by languages like C# (that __already__ allow you to write decent client
by tester756 6y ago
I think that's just proof that "the next future" of web development is going to be owned by languages like C# (that __already__ allow you to write decent client side web apps) and other already popular not dynamic languages
After C# of course yet another DSLs.
- cageface 6y agoTypescript can seamlessly interop with existing JS libraries. This is a huge advantage over any non-JS language.
- tester756 6y agoAin't everything going to be WASM anyway?
- rubber_duck 6y agoI came to TS after years of C#, all the way back to .NET 2.0 and WinForms. TBH TypeScript is just better than C# for the job it does - DOM control and gluing data - structural typing that's backed by a dynamic runtime is a much better fit for those kinds of tasks than a nominal type system backed by IL level type checking - AutoMapper is nonsense created by this design decision and C# is particularly verbose (almost Java level). C# allows you to get much lower level than TS can, you can control memory layout, allocation patterns, you have proper threading model, etc. etc. But for dealing with single threaded DOM event loop, stitching data from all kinds of sources, simple transformations and sending it around - IMO TS is a better fit.
- k__ 6y agoI hope not. C# is too bloated for my taste and I have to admit, TS is too close to C# for my taste.
- tester756 6y agoI do agree that it's becoming lately
- Vinnl 6y agoIf it's like C# in that it's bloated, I can see why you might say that, but I'm quite sure that my TS code looks nothing like C# code. (Because it's almost exactly like my JS code, but with annotations and fewer redundant checks.)
- k__ 6y agoTo me, C# like type annotations, especially generics, look bloated. ReasonML files don't look like that and are even sound.