4 ms·

This proposal is essentially a way to standardize a subset of typescript (a subset for now...). It's Microsoft imposing their technology on the ECMA committee.

This proposal is essentially a way to standardize a subset of typescript (a subset for now...). It's Microsoft imposing their technology on the ECMA committee. Ironically the same Microsoft that rejected ES4. We wouldn't be needing Typescript if ES4 was adopted 15 years ago... edit: While this proposal doesn't have runtime typechecks, it's just one step toward adding runtime typechecks it isn't a stretch to think that if this passes, runtime typechecks might eventually be added to the language. ActionScript 3/JScript.net/ES4 had them, so it's perfectly possible for Javascript "with types" to add them as well.

DanRosenwasser 5y ago
Hey there, speaking as a champion of the proposal, the TypeScript PM, and a representative in TC39 for 6 years, we're not trying to impose anything or pressure anyone. We hope to present this proposal, and are fully open to discussion and criticism. We are committed to working with other standards representatives, working through the stage process, and not "pushing weight" around here. I wasn't there for ES4; however, the type semantics of ES4 is a drastically differ from what's being proposed here. There is some information on the FAQ about why runtime types are a non-starter. (https://github.com/giltayar/proposal-types-as-comments/#why-not-define-a-type-system-for-js-in-tc39-instead https://github.com/giltayar/proposal-types-as-comments/#why-...) This comment probably won't count for much - actions speak louder than words. Hopefully we can demonstrate that we're being genuine here.