4 ms·
There is an EcmaScript proposal to go in that direction: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations I
by phartenfeller 2y ago
There is an EcmaScript proposal to go in that direction: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations
I think this should be part of the language spec.
- wiseowise 2y agoBeyond ugly. They should just make TS official and be done with it. E: I thought it was JSDoc proposal. Ignore the comment.
- blovescoffee 2y agoI did only briefly look at the proposal. What did you find so ugly?
- wiseowise 2y agoI misread the proposal. Thought it was for JSDoc.
- meiraleal 2y agoMisread no, you didn't read.
- wiseowise 2y agoYeah. I saw JSDoc and closed it, lol.
- Dylan16807 2y agoSpecifically, you saw the section titled "Limits of JSDoc Type Annotations"?
- wiseowise 2y agoSpecifically, I saw JSDoc syntax and it triggered me so much that I closed the page and threw my phone away in disgust at absurdness of even the idea that someone thought having something like this unironically is a remotely good idea.
- FractalHQ 2y agoI support this behavior as the only correct reaction.
- IshKebab 2y agoWhat do you mean ugly? This basically is making Typescript official. They just can't have browsers doing the actual type checking because there isn't a specification for how to do that, and writing one would be extremely complicated, and I'm not sure what the point would be anyway.
- wiseowise 2y agoI misread the proposal, tho it it was for JSDoc.
- padavanchik 2y agoThere is no language spec for TS. No alternative implementations. All we have is checker.ts. It's ugly and slow.