4 ms·
Just to add to this—the reason I find Static TypeScript particularly interesting is that it is a Microsoft project: https://github.com/microsoft/pxt/tree/maste
by binarynate 5y ago
Just to add to this—the reason I find Static TypeScript particularly interesting is that it is a Microsoft project:
https://github.com/microsoft/pxt/tree/master/pxtcompiler https://github.com/microsoft/pxt/tree/master/pxtcompiler
Compiling TypeScript to other targets is a significant challenge, so I think that in order for a project to become a viable alternative, it will need the resources of a big company like MS behind it. However, I'm not sure if MS or any other company currently has a great incentive to invest heavily in that. Running TypeScript on Node or Deno is good enough for most applications, and for apps that require better performance, MS already has C#, which was architected from the start to be performant (for example, allowing apps to use just value types / structs so that the GC isn't used).
- eyelidlessness 5y agoI also find Static TypeScript interesting because it’s so relatively obscure compared to AssemblyScript, but much closer to regular TypeScript. And because I suspect there are opportunities to use it, at least partially, in build tooling scenarios where the equivalent JavaScript (Babel/estree etc AST transforms) is a particularly poor experience and most of the alternatives involve rewriting in Rust or whatever. I also wonder how much of the challenge of compiling [whatever subset of] TypeScript is rooted in the fact that dependencies are almost universally shipped as JavaScript. Apart from the highly dynamic nature of many front end libraries, idiomatic TypeScript usually provides a great deal more static analysis potential than is probably in use.