3 ms·

Trying to ease development burdens & generate more intercompatible ways of doing things, with less lift required to get going, while retaining the same benefits

Trying to ease development burdens & generate more intercompatible ways of doing things, with less lift required to get going, while retaining the same benefits of types for those who want them, is 100% a superb & worthy idea. It's great to see such developer-friendly compatibility & adaptability. Top level comments so far (I have skipped two top level comments): "I don't want this." "I'm not sure this will help solve any of our problems." "Sounds like a bad idea" "Nahhhh lets get the [non-type related foobar] proposal to land" "This is a wrong assumption." "Just merge with Typescript already" "there will be a flame war" Mercy! Be happy!

asddubs 4y ago
browsers are very conservative about breaking changes. javascript features that allow for loose and questionable usage is the thing that got us into this mess in the first place. once this is out there, there will be code using it in the most incorrect way it can get away with, and no one will want to break that code later on. that's why it's not just important that we get "something", but we get it right.
- rektide 4y ago
  > javascript features that allow for loose and questionable usage is the thing that got us into this mess in the first place. And what "mess" is this? Again I think my previous advice is pretty on point: "Be happy!" Everything has only gotten better, from my perspective. That TypeScript exists & has grown up is yet more proof that incremental, ongoing, progressive advancement is amazing. I think if we'd tried to make everything all at once, it would have been a disaster. > once this is out there, there will be code using it in the most incorrect way it can get away with, and no one will want to break that code later on. This is a spec to let various typechecks be applied, but doesn't specify any specific type-system. I have a hard time visualizing whatever scary situation it is you are imagining. This seems low risk.
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    > Everything has only gotten better, from my perspective. Would you accept the idea that the language has actually gotten worse? What would it take to convince you?
    - rektide 4y ago
      > What would it take to convince you? arguments. i've been doing this for over two decades, & the ability to sling async functions, w3c streams, abortcontrollers, modules, optional chaining,... everything is so kick ass better. my resistance to being convinced is going to be high, but heavens yes i'd love to entertain something higher & more illuminating than the general retrogressive cassally slanderous backhanding this language endlessly endures.
      - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
        > arguments My argument is essentially that as the language has become more complex, it has become harder for more junior colleagues (and actually most programmers) to use the language effectively. Do you buy the idea that a language might be better if it were designed to guide the user towards success? Or do you think it’s better to just throw everything possible into the language, warts and all? > w3c streams I know what a stream is, and I know the W3C is. What is a “w3c stream”? > modules My experience has been that the implementation of this idea in JavaScript has been extremely fragmented.
        rektide 4y ago
codeflo 4y ago
I’m fully with you. This greatly simplifies tooling by making transpilers entirely optional, meaning you don’t need a complicated setup just to get going. Developers get convenience, users aren’t affected, that’s a win all around. People may not fully realize this, but the problem with the “just standardize TypeScript” suggestions is that TypeScript is a fast moving target. This is actually well argued in the proposal: lots of meaningful innovation is still happening in that space with more precise checks, which also means that small incompatibilities happen from version to version. That’s okay if we’re talking about dev tooling that a team can choose to upgrade at their own pace. It would be really bad to have browser upgrades affect the functionality of existing websites.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pvg 4y ago
You could just, you know, vote on or reply to those comments.
- rektide 4y ago
  I have. But there's a pervading forrest of negativity, especially on js subjects, and trying to argue about each tree is only so helpful. The meta-attending to whats happening is direly needed.
  - pvg 4y ago
    Pasting bits of other people's comments out of context to sneer at them is plainly less helpful than not doing that, whatever you choose to meta-call it.
    - rektide 4y ago
      I think I've done a moderate & mild job of holding up a very reasonable mirror to what happens, broadly, in a lot of threads. This isnt at all unrepresentative of what's happening. In most cases it's people's first words. This is long long overdue. Silence about this cavalcade cannot go on imdefinitely. This reaction you are having seems way way out of line for some pretty basic reflection. How else might we try to meta-attend to our social problems?
      - pvg 4y ago
        How else might we try to meta-attend to our social problems? Not by haranguing forth on HN, a site that's explicitly not for that kind of discussion.
        rektide 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

asddubs 4y ago

browsers are very conservative about breaking changes. javascript features that allow for loose and questionable usage is the thing that got us into this mess in the first place. once this is out there, there will be code using it in the most incorrect way it can get away with, and no one will want to break that code later on. that's why it's not just important that we get "something", but we get it right.

rektide 4y ago
> javascript features that allow for loose and questionable usage is the thing that got us into this mess in the first place. And what "mess" is this? Again I think my previous advice is pretty on point: "Be happy!" Everything has only gotten better, from my perspective. That TypeScript exists & has grown up is yet more proof that incremental, ongoing, progressive advancement is amazing. I think if we'd tried to make everything all at once, it would have been a disaster. > once this is out there, there will be code using it in the most incorrect way it can get away with, and no one will want to break that code later on. This is a spec to let various typechecks be applied, but doesn't specify any specific type-system. I have a hard time visualizing whatever scary situation it is you are imagining. This seems low risk.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  > Everything has only gotten better, from my perspective. Would you accept the idea that the language has actually gotten worse? What would it take to convince you?
  - rektide 4y ago
    > What would it take to convince you? arguments. i've been doing this for over two decades, & the ability to sling async functions, w3c streams, abortcontrollers, modules, optional chaining,... everything is so kick ass better. my resistance to being convinced is going to be high, but heavens yes i'd love to entertain something higher & more illuminating than the general retrogressive cassally slanderous backhanding this language endlessly endures.
    - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
      > arguments My argument is essentially that as the language has become more complex, it has become harder for more junior colleagues (and actually most programmers) to use the language effectively. Do you buy the idea that a language might be better if it were designed to guide the user towards success? Or do you think it’s better to just throw everything possible into the language, warts and all? > w3c streams I know what a stream is, and I know the W3C is. What is a “w3c stream”? > modules My experience has been that the implementation of this idea in JavaScript has been extremely fragmented.
      - rektide 4y ago

codeflo 4y ago

I’m fully with you. This greatly simplifies tooling by making transpilers entirely optional, meaning you don’t need a complicated setup just to get going. Developers get convenience, users aren’t affected, that’s a win all around. People may not fully realize this, but the problem with the “just standardize TypeScript” suggestions is that TypeScript is a fast moving target. This is actually well argued in the proposal: lots of meaningful innovation is still happening in that space with more precise checks, which also means that small incompatibilities happen from version to version. That’s okay if we’re talking about dev tooling that a team can choose to upgrade at their own pace. It would be really bad to have browser upgrades affect the functionality of existing websites.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pvg 4y ago

You could just, you know, vote on or reply to those comments.

rektide 4y ago
I have. But there's a pervading forrest of negativity, especially on js subjects, and trying to argue about each tree is only so helpful. The meta-attending to whats happening is direly needed.
- pvg 4y ago
  Pasting bits of other people's comments out of context to sneer at them is plainly less helpful than not doing that, whatever you choose to meta-call it.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I think I've done a moderate & mild job of holding up a very reasonable mirror to what happens, broadly, in a lot of threads. This isnt at all unrepresentative of what's happening. In most cases it's people's first words. This is long long overdue. Silence about this cavalcade cannot go on imdefinitely. This reaction you are having seems way way out of line for some pretty basic reflection. How else might we try to meta-attend to our social problems?
    - pvg 4y ago
      How else might we try to meta-attend to our social problems? Not by haranguing forth on HN, a site that's explicitly not for that kind of discussion.
      - rektide 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]