4 ms·
I'd also add that Typescript would be a very bad language choice anyway. If we're going to have a backward-incompatible change, we should do things the right wa
by hajile 4y ago
I'd also add that Typescript would be a very bad language choice anyway. If we're going to have a backward-incompatible change, we should do things the right way (after all, we're stuck with it forever).
Don't make a type system work around the really bad parts of JS. Instead, don't allow them in typed modules. Don't settle for an intentionally unsound (aka broken ) type system. Add an actually sound (probably hindley-milner based) type system that provides usable type info to the JIT so we can guarantee fast, safe code.
- smt88 4y ago> If we're going to have a backward-incompatible change, we should do things the right way It makes much more sense to use a good language (Kotlin, Rust, Java) and transpile to JavaScript. There's already great tooling for it.
- genjii931 4y agoWelcome to Nim.
- jfengel 4y agoJavaScript seems an unlikely compiler target, forced on us out of the odd historical success of JS on the browser. I'd think that a better target would be to make a VM like WASM.
- smt88 4y agoIf WASM were a viable target today, I'd agree, but it isn't yet. Transpiling to JS is ready for production and widely compatible with all browsers already.