3 ms·

I won't defend TypeScript. Mainly because I'm not interested in doing such a thing; I don't like it that much, clearly not enough to care. But even so, I will

I won't defend TypeScript. Mainly because I'm not interested in doing such a thing; I don't like it that much, clearly not enough to care. But even so, I will say a couple of things about your arguments. Regarding i), no, it's not a framework. But then again, I don't think that's what your argument expresses anyway. You seem to be saying "it's yet another dependency you need to keep up with". This would be correct and a valid argument. But it's unrelated with "being a framework" (which, again, it is not). As for ii)... I'm afraid this argument could be valid for any large group you want to pick in software. Are you arguing JS libraries at large are better documented? Sounds highly dubious. From a different angle, is this a problem with the language itself or is it a problem with the libraries? Finally, regarding iv), there is no "progress including TypeScript in a browser" and you should never have expected it. Not saying it will never happen because some person somewhere might do it, but you shouldn't expect it.

mark_and_sweep 4y ago
Regarding iv), I disagree that one should not expect this to happen. There's a stage 1 ES proposal for allowing TS-like syntax in the browser: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations So there's good reason to believe this may actually happen in the next couple of years.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Everyone (including the authors of the Type Annotations proposal) seem to be on the same page that static typing - "including TypeScript in a browser" - is not desirable and will not happen. For the avoidance of doubt, the Type Annotations proposal is not actually static typing, but just a 'fancy comments' for the JS interpreter to completely ignore.
roberttod 4y ago
> From a different angle, is this a problem with the language itself or is it a problem with the libraries? It's a problem for me - the developer. From my viewpoint I don't really care where the responsibility of bad documentation lies, only that it makes me not want to use TypeScript. > Are you arguing JS libraries at large are better documented? Sounds highly dubious. You can't really decouple JS libraries from TS. Most JS libraries still maintained support TS these days. My point is that many of them are still documented using JS with JS examples, and don't fully document the types that go along with all their methods.
- genezeta 4y ago
  > You can't really decouple JS libraries from TS. Most JS libraries still maintained support TS these days. My point is that many of them are still documented using JS with JS examples, and don't fully document the types that go along with all their methods. Ok, but... what you're saying here is that, while you're not convinced by TS yourself, you expect all JS library creators to be convinced. Why should they be?
  - roberttod 4y ago
    I am not saying I expect them to be better documented, only that the reality is that they are not well documented in TS and that makes TS difficult to use.

mark_and_sweep 4y ago

Regarding iv), I disagree that one should not expect this to happen. There's a stage 1 ES proposal for allowing TS-like syntax in the browser: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations So there's good reason to believe this may actually happen in the next couple of years.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Everyone (including the authors of the Type Annotations proposal) seem to be on the same page that static typing - "including TypeScript in a browser" - is not desirable and will not happen. For the avoidance of doubt, the Type Annotations proposal is not actually static typing, but just a 'fancy comments' for the JS interpreter to completely ignore.

roberttod 4y ago

> From a different angle, is this a problem with the language itself or is it a problem with the libraries? It's a problem for me - the developer. From my viewpoint I don't really care where the responsibility of bad documentation lies, only that it makes me not want to use TypeScript. > Are you arguing JS libraries at large are better documented? Sounds highly dubious. You can't really decouple JS libraries from TS. Most JS libraries still maintained support TS these days. My point is that many of them are still documented using JS with JS examples, and don't fully document the types that go along with all their methods.

genezeta 4y ago
> You can't really decouple JS libraries from TS. Most JS libraries still maintained support TS these days. My point is that many of them are still documented using JS with JS examples, and don't fully document the types that go along with all their methods. Ok, but... what you're saying here is that, while you're not convinced by TS yourself, you expect all JS library creators to be convinced. Why should they be?
- roberttod 4y ago
  I am not saying I expect them to be better documented, only that the reality is that they are not well documented in TS and that makes TS difficult to use.