3 ms·

Its worth remembering that Visual Studio also used to be regarded as really good right up until it... wasn't, and then with VS code is sort of was again. Except

by fergie 5y ago

Its worth remembering that Visual Studio also used to be regarded as really good right up until it... wasn't, and then with VS code is sort of was again. Except right now it kind of isn't. The fate of VS code seems to be really closely tied to TypeScript at the moment. If it turns out that Types really are the way forward, then these will eventually be included in the JS core. What then for TypeScript? Who even decides? The nice thing about Emacs is that it is firmly rooted in standards and consensus. It will never be the best editor for most people at any one moment in time, but it has been a _good_ editor for decades and will continue to be so for decades to come.

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
>The fate of VS code seems to be really closely tied to TypeScript at the moment. That's like saying the the fate of Emacs would be closely tied to Common Lisp (or Coq with Proof General). That's some languages Emacs where still beats anything else.
- fergie 5y ago
  Since TypeScript is developed by Microsoft, its fair to say that support for TypeScript will always be best in Microsoft's Visual Studio.
  - ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
    > support for TypeScript will always be best in Microsoft's Visual Studio. That typo is actually the problem. If they don't decide to make TypeScript a Visual Studio feature. But my point is that VS Code would not be an alternative to Emacs if you could only use it for TS and Emacs wouldn't exist any more, if all that you could do with it was programming (Common) Lisp.
    - bborud 5y ago
      Hmm, what if VS Code was done in WASM with the ability to write extensions in any language with compilers that can produce WASM? Any obvious reasons this would be a good/bad idea?
      - ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
        That wouldn't work, because WASM can't (directly, you need some JS bridge) interact with the DOM. Btw. you can transpile many languages to JS. Webassembly is the same as being able to call C libs (which don't have to be written in C) from Python. It's there to speed up bottlenecks.
        bborud 5y ago
        Wouldn't it make more sense to design browsers where a WASM runtime interacts with the DOM (and architecturally make it look more like a device driver)? And you could just compile JS to WASM on demand (and possibly keep a cache).
zkldi 5y ago
> If it turns out that Types really are the way forward, then these will eventually be included in the JS core. Not necessarily? TypeScript could easily continue being its own thing as it is now, and ECMAScript have shown absolutely 0 interest in adding types to the core language a-la TypeScript. Infact, the amount of work needed to enable types (supporting new syntax) would result in so much backwards compatibility breaking that it wouldn't even be feasible. TypeScript is way more likely to remain its own thing.
- bborud 5y ago
  That might not be a bad thing. It shouldn't be a controversial position to say that perhaps something cobbled together by an inexperienced language designer in a matter of weeks, five or six internet lifetimes ago may not be a good long term bet. I wish browsers would set an EOL for JS support and just get on with WASM. Of course, that's never going to happen.

by fergie 5y ago

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago

>The fate of VS code seems to be really closely tied to TypeScript at the moment. That's like saying the the fate of Emacs would be closely tied to Common Lisp (or Coq with Proof General). That's some languages Emacs where still beats anything else.

fergie 5y ago
Since TypeScript is developed by Microsoft, its fair to say that support for TypeScript will always be best in Microsoft's Visual Studio.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
  > support for TypeScript will always be best in Microsoft's Visual Studio. That typo is actually the problem. If they don't decide to make TypeScript a Visual Studio feature. But my point is that VS Code would not be an alternative to Emacs if you could only use it for TS and Emacs wouldn't exist any more, if all that you could do with it was programming (Common) Lisp.
  - bborud 5y ago
    Hmm, what if VS Code was done in WASM with the ability to write extensions in any language with compilers that can produce WASM? Any obvious reasons this would be a good/bad idea?
    - ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
      That wouldn't work, because WASM can't (directly, you need some JS bridge) interact with the DOM. Btw. you can transpile many languages to JS. Webassembly is the same as being able to call C libs (which don't have to be written in C) from Python. It's there to speed up bottlenecks.
      - bborud 5y ago
        Wouldn't it make more sense to design browsers where a WASM runtime interacts with the DOM (and architecturally make it look more like a device driver)? And you could just compile JS to WASM on demand (and possibly keep a cache).

zkldi 5y ago

> If it turns out that Types really are the way forward, then these will eventually be included in the JS core. Not necessarily? TypeScript could easily continue being its own thing as it is now, and ECMAScript have shown absolutely 0 interest in adding types to the core language a-la TypeScript. Infact, the amount of work needed to enable types (supporting new syntax) would result in so much backwards compatibility breaking that it wouldn't even be feasible. TypeScript is way more likely to remain its own thing.

bborud 5y ago
That might not be a bad thing. It shouldn't be a controversial position to say that perhaps something cobbled together by an inexperienced language designer in a matter of weeks, five or six internet lifetimes ago may not be a good long term bet. I wish browsers would set an EOL for JS support and just get on with WASM. Of course, that's never going to happen.