4 ms·

> what advantage does it bring? The advantage would be, that static typing is part of the language. Don't you find it odd to use another language just for a mi

> what advantage does it bring? The advantage would be, that static typing is part of the language. Don't you find it odd to use another language just for a missing language feature? For me it feels somewhat hacky and '// temp. solution!!! fix soon!'-worthy.

Matheus28 4y ago
But with this proposal, static typing wouldn't be part of the language. It's just a fancy looking comment. No different than using JSDoc with a nicer syntax
- lagrange77 4y ago
  Ok agreed, i would also like to have the type checker build into the language as well. But in the end, this is a scripting language. Maybe it's not too bad to not enforce it being typed, but provide a baseline to have it being typed optionally, in form of an 'official' annotation syntax. But i'm thinking out loud now.
  - Matheus28 4y ago
    I just think it'd overcomplicate implementations. We already have typescript and such, and they work perfectly. It's my personal belief that integrating those things into the language would slow innovation.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    But we are talking about a language that is streamed over the internet in absurd quantities, and thus has dedicated tools to make it unreadably small as to better utilize bandwidth. Adding any fluff that is not even useful/get utilized on the frontend side is not a good idea.
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
> Don't you find it odd to use another language just for a missing language feature? No. Why do you? For a language to not try and have all the features it possibly can is a feature.
- lagrange77 4y ago
  > No. Why do you? I mean, i like TypeScript a lot. I think i do find it odd, because i'm used to using languages, that are constructed with a certain feature set. Obviously Java/ECMA Script evolved a lot more chaotic than most other languages. Transpiling a superset of a language to its subset introduces indirection, which makes it feel hacky imo. I feel like, if there is another language feature we want to add in the future, how should that be injected? In form of a superset of TypeScript? I would be cool with TypeScript as the target language, though.

Matheus28 4y ago

But with this proposal, static typing wouldn't be part of the language. It's just a fancy looking comment. No different than using JSDoc with a nicer syntax

lagrange77 4y ago
Ok agreed, i would also like to have the type checker build into the language as well. But in the end, this is a scripting language. Maybe it's not too bad to not enforce it being typed, but provide a baseline to have it being typed optionally, in form of an 'official' annotation syntax. But i'm thinking out loud now.
- Matheus28 4y ago
  I just think it'd overcomplicate implementations. We already have typescript and such, and they work perfectly. It's my personal belief that integrating those things into the language would slow innovation.
- kaba0 4y ago
  But we are talking about a language that is streamed over the internet in absurd quantities, and thus has dedicated tools to make it unreadably small as to better utilize bandwidth. Adding any fluff that is not even useful/get utilized on the frontend side is not a good idea.

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

> Don't you find it odd to use another language just for a missing language feature? No. Why do you? For a language to not try and have all the features it possibly can is a feature.

lagrange77 4y ago
> No. Why do you? I mean, i like TypeScript a lot. I think i do find it odd, because i'm used to using languages, that are constructed with a certain feature set. Obviously Java/ECMA Script evolved a lot more chaotic than most other languages. Transpiling a superset of a language to its subset introduces indirection, which makes it feel hacky imo. I feel like, if there is another language feature we want to add in the future, how should that be injected? In form of a superset of TypeScript? I would be cool with TypeScript as the target language, though.