3 ms·

Unlike the author, I love significant whitespace and am enjoying nimrod lately with it. I'd love to see a CoffeeScript variant for TypeScript. TypeScript has t

Unlike the author, I love significant whitespace and am enjoying nimrod lately with it. I'd love to see a CoffeeScript variant for TypeScript. TypeScript has the structural things of CoffeeScript and more (OO paradigms, member visibility, modules, typing, etc) but much more verbose. I have tinkered w/ the CoffeeScript grammar/parser adding in a backslash to denote to type (e.g. "(x\int) -> x * x") and the TypeScript AST and compiler are very easy to work with. I just haven't had the enthusiasm to build a complete project. That would be my dream language. Until then I think scala.js is a great fit.

ilaksh 13y ago
I love CoffeeScript and am excited about nimrod, but I don't see the point of TypeScript. Honestly I am fairly certain that it was largely created by Microsoft as part of the EEE strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) since the main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types.
- ahoge 13y ago
  > since the main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types. With TypeScript and Dart, the type annotations are optional. You don't have to use them. With JavaScript, you can't add any type information. Using non-standard doc comments is the only option. Also, the main advantage of JavaScript is that it's available in browsers.
- kodablah 13y ago
  I disagree. TypeScript not only attempts to be inline w/ upcoming ES/Harmony standards, but it is not pushed on you in any way. It's Apache licensed and it's not like MS is putting a TypeScript VM in their browser. I love TypeScript's typing system, especially type declarations which are based on whether something has something vs on its named type (i.e. duck typing). There are many editors from MS's free VS express to WebStorm plugins to event IDE's written in TypeScript themselves. I find the language work by MS these days (this, f#, etc) to be really community friendly as opposed to locking in. Re "main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types", I am a static typing fanatic so I am just going to disagree here and spare everyone the religious (or as Yegge would say, political) war.

ilaksh 13y ago

I love CoffeeScript and am excited about nimrod, but I don't see the point of TypeScript. Honestly I am fairly certain that it was largely created by Microsoft as part of the EEE strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) since the main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types.

ahoge 13y ago
> since the main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types. With TypeScript and Dart, the type annotations are optional. You don't have to use them. With JavaScript, you can't add any type information. Using non-standard doc comments is the only option. Also, the main advantage of JavaScript is that it's available in browsers.
kodablah 13y ago
I disagree. TypeScript not only attempts to be inline w/ upcoming ES/Harmony standards, but it is not pushed on you in any way. It's Apache licensed and it's not like MS is putting a TypeScript VM in their browser. I love TypeScript's typing system, especially type declarations which are based on whether something has something vs on its named type (i.e. duck typing). There are many editors from MS's free VS express to WebStorm plugins to event IDE's written in TypeScript themselves. I find the language work by MS these days (this, f#, etc) to be really community friendly as opposed to locking in. Re "main advantage of JavaScript is not having to supply types", I am a static typing fanatic so I am just going to disagree here and spare everyone the religious (or as Yegge would say, political) war.