3 ms·

> The aim of this proposal is to enable developers to run programs written in TypeScript, Flow, and other static typing supersets of JavaScript without any need

> The aim of this proposal is to enable developers to run programs written in TypeScript, Flow, and other static typing supersets of JavaScript without any need for transpilation, > if they stick within a certain reasonably large subset of the language. <-------- !!!!!!!!!! js + type annotations !== typescript The most recent discussion sums this up with, I think this comment: > EAO: Okay. So the sense I get overall of this whole proposal, that it’s more of a – it’s a solution looking for a problem that it’s trying to solve a year ago when this got accepted for Stage 1, the problem statement that was in fact considered then was only effective we made up or made concrete during the meeting itself, and then – so what it looks like now is that since then, that problem statement has evolved to this current form of unifying or unforking JavaScript and somehow then presenting type annotations as a way of achieving this result. However, I’ve not been able to find any conversation anywhere or description of how in practice this unification is supposed to happen as a consequence of accepting type annotations. No one had a good answer to that, because there isn't one. Anyhow, tldr; this has basically nothing to do with any tangible reason to think ESM is good or useful in anything other than a massively broad, speculative 'maybe in the future' kind of way. ...it is most certainly not any kind of advantage or reason to use ESM for anyone, right now.

afiori 2y ago
Being able to copy paste typescript snippets in the browser console is enough of a benefit in my opinion
WorldMaker 2y ago
> js + type annotations !== typescript It's very close though. The proposal is well written and covers the cases where existing Typescript code would not parse correctly/work as intended under the proposal. Most of those cases are pre-1.0 Typescript features still in the language for backwards compatibility but generally frowned upon and that you probably already have strict warnings and linter errors preventing you from using today. The big exception is a lot of TS codebases heavily use `enum` and I've still not seen enough suggestions to tighten the linter warning against it. (But there are at least some of us suggesting avoiding TS `enum` today.)

afiori 2y ago

Being able to copy paste typescript snippets in the browser console is enough of a benefit in my opinion

WorldMaker 2y ago

> js + type annotations !== typescript It's very close though. The proposal is well written and covers the cases where existing Typescript code would not parse correctly/work as intended under the proposal. Most of those cases are pre-1.0 Typescript features still in the language for backwards compatibility but generally frowned upon and that you probably already have strict warnings and linter errors preventing you from using today. The big exception is a lot of TS codebases heavily use `enum` and I've still not seen enough suggestions to tighten the linter warning against it. (But there are at least some of us suggesting avoiding TS `enum` today.)