4 ms·

Before that there was the closure compiler (Google) which had type annotations in comments. The annotation syntax in comments was a little clunky but overall t

Before that there was the closure compiler (Google) which had type annotations in comments. The annotation syntax in comments was a little clunky but overall that project was ahead of it's time. Now I believe even inside google that has been transpiled to typescript (or typescript is being transpiled to closure, I can't remember which - the point is that the typescript interface is what people are using for new code).

LoganDark 2y ago
Oh, Closure Compiler is such a throwback. I still remember staring at the project page on Google Code. Isn't it like two decades old or even older by this point? Is it still alive?
- mdhb 2y ago
  The compiler itself lives on but it works with TypeScript now rather than the JSDoc comments style approach which is officially EOL AFAIK.
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  Closure is still used in Emscripten to optimize the generated Javascript shim file.
- rty32 2y ago
  This can give you some hints of the current status of closure compiler: https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues/2731 https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues/2731 I happen to know this because we have some old projects that depend on this and are working hard to get rid of the dependency. I wish Google either updates it or just mark the whole thing deprecated -- the world has already moved on anyway. Relating this to Google's recent cost cutting, and seeing some other Google's open source projects more or less getting abandoned, I have to say that today's Google is definitely not the same company from two decades ago.
miki123211 2y ago
Closure was also interesting because it integrated type checking and minification, which made minification significantly more useful. With normal Javascript and typescript, you can't minify property names, so `foo.bar.doSomethingVeryComplicated()` can only be turned into `a.bar.doSomethingVeryComplicated()`, not `a.b.c()`, like with Closure. This is because objects can be indexed by strings. Something like `foo.bar[function]()` is perfectly valid JS, where the value of `function` might come from the user. A minifier can't guarantee that such expressions won't be used, so it cannot optimize property accesses. Because Closure was a type checker and a minifier at the same time, it could minify the properties declared as private, while leaving the public ones intact.
- wiktor-k 2y ago
  > Something like `foo.bar[function]()` is perfectly valid JS, A minor thing but `function` is a keyword in JS so technically it's not a "perfectly valid JS".
  - mkesper 2y ago
    Oh boy, just think functionName and it fits.
- mananaysiempre 2y ago
  > A minifier can't guarantee that such expressions won't be used, so it cannot optimize property accesses. Given TypeScript’s type system is unsound, neither could it even if it tried, right? I guess Flow could, but well, here we are.
  - afavour 2y ago
    Theoretically TS could… until it encounters an ‘any’ type in that code path, then it would have to give up. But there are TSconfig options to ensure no use of any so with the right level of strictness it could happen.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    What do you mean by unsound exactly. I'm asking because there's no accepted definition of what an unsound type system is. What I often see is that the word unsound is used to mean that a type system can accept types different to what has been declared, and in that case there's nothing unsound about ts since it won't allow you to do so.
btown 2y ago
Google’s Closure Library is fascinating too. It’s being retired, but if you want to build a rich text interface for email authoring that truly feels like Gmail, warts and all, you can just use a pre-compiled version of the library and follow https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closure/goog/demos/editor/editor.html https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closur... within a more modern codebase!
rty32 2y ago
Closure is almost a forgotten child of Google now. Does not even fully support ES2022 as of today. We are working hard to get rid of it completely. Surprise, lots of important projects still rely on it today.
- jazzypants 2y ago
  This is true. For instance, React still uses Closure compiler in their build process.

LoganDark 2y ago

Oh, Closure Compiler is such a throwback. I still remember staring at the project page on Google Code. Isn't it like two decades old or even older by this point? Is it still alive?

mdhb 2y ago
The compiler itself lives on but it works with TypeScript now rather than the JSDoc comments style approach which is officially EOL AFAIK.
flohofwoe 2y ago
Closure is still used in Emscripten to optimize the generated Javascript shim file.
rty32 2y ago
This can give you some hints of the current status of closure compiler: https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues/2731 https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues/2731 I happen to know this because we have some old projects that depend on this and are working hard to get rid of the dependency. I wish Google either updates it or just mark the whole thing deprecated -- the world has already moved on anyway. Relating this to Google's recent cost cutting, and seeing some other Google's open source projects more or less getting abandoned, I have to say that today's Google is definitely not the same company from two decades ago.

miki123211 2y ago

Closure was also interesting because it integrated type checking and minification, which made minification significantly more useful. With normal Javascript and typescript, you can't minify property names, so `foo.bar.doSomethingVeryComplicated()` can only be turned into `a.bar.doSomethingVeryComplicated()`, not `a.b.c()`, like with Closure. This is because objects can be indexed by strings. Something like `foo.bar[function]()` is perfectly valid JS, where the value of `function` might come from the user. A minifier can't guarantee that such expressions won't be used, so it cannot optimize property accesses. Because Closure was a type checker and a minifier at the same time, it could minify the properties declared as private, while leaving the public ones intact.

wiktor-k 2y ago
> Something like `foo.bar[function]()` is perfectly valid JS, A minor thing but `function` is a keyword in JS so technically it's not a "perfectly valid JS".
- mkesper 2y ago
  Oh boy, just think functionName and it fits.
mananaysiempre 2y ago
> A minifier can't guarantee that such expressions won't be used, so it cannot optimize property accesses. Given TypeScript’s type system is unsound, neither could it even if it tried, right? I guess Flow could, but well, here we are.
- afavour 2y ago
  Theoretically TS could… until it encounters an ‘any’ type in that code path, then it would have to give up. But there are TSconfig options to ensure no use of any so with the right level of strictness it could happen.
- epolanski 2y ago
  What do you mean by unsound exactly. I'm asking because there's no accepted definition of what an unsound type system is. What I often see is that the word unsound is used to mean that a type system can accept types different to what has been declared, and in that case there's nothing unsound about ts since it won't allow you to do so.

btown 2y ago

Google’s Closure Library is fascinating too. It’s being retired, but if you want to build a rich text interface for email authoring that truly feels like Gmail, warts and all, you can just use a pre-compiled version of the library and follow https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closure/goog/demos/editor/editor.html https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closur... within a more modern codebase!

rty32 2y ago

Closure is almost a forgotten child of Google now. Does not even fully support ES2022 as of today. We are working hard to get rid of it completely. Surprise, lots of important projects still rely on it today.

jazzypants 2y ago
This is true. For instance, React still uses Closure compiler in their build process.