5 ms·

While baking TypeScript into Visual Studio isn't a certainty of its future success (e.g. Silverlight), it is a good indicator of Microsoft's commitment to the l

by judah 13y ago

While baking TypeScript into Visual Studio isn't a certainty of its future success (e.g. Silverlight), it is a good indicator of Microsoft's commitment to the language. As a former CoffeeScript user, I love TypeScript: it's a more consistent language driven by a real language designer, Anders Heijlsberg, author of Turbo Pascal, Delphi, C#, and now TypeScript. I am building 2 major projects using it: - RavenDB Management Studio [1] - BitShuva, my Pandora-clone radio startup [2] Both of these projects have benefited from TypeScript. Microsoft has really built something quite nice here: a clean JavaScript with an optional, flexible type system, plus goodies from the future version of JavaScript (lambdas, classes, modules). I believe this simpler approach is superior to Dart's monolithic standard library + optional VM, superior to the Rubyist's take on JavaScript that is CoffeeScript. [1]: https://github.com/JudahGabriel/ravendb/tree/Raven.Studio.Html5/Raven.Studio.Html5 https://github.com/JudahGabriel/ravendb/tree/Raven.Studio.Ht... [2]: http://bitshuva.codeplex.com http://bitshuva.codeplex.com

k__ 13y ago
I like the ideas of Dart much more, but the JavaScript-interop is rather bad in Dart, because of the DartVM focus. TypeScript seems C# flange-mounted on top of JavaScript, but it's probaby the only viable alternative with good js-interop...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jmcqk6 13y ago
  That's probably because TypeScript has more in common with CoffeeScript than Dart as a language. Dart is a full featured language that can stand on it's own and has it's own runtime. TypeScript is a superscript of javascript. It doesn't have a runtime - it gets transcompiled into javascript. If coffeescript is for writing javascript like you would write python or ruby, then typescript is for writing javascript like you would C#. I've used TypeScript on a large project I'm working on. Sometimes I regret it. I went with typescript mainly because I was not as confident that I could just jump into building a large JS codebase. Now that I've been in that world for a year, many times I'm wishing that I had just gone with JS from the start, or maybe limited my use of TypeScript to just type annotations.
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    I haven't found any disadvantage to TypeScript over JavaScript. It's also trivial to switch, since compilation mostly just removes type annotations. I have however been annoyed at not being able to use sweet.js macros.
    - jmcqk6 13y ago
      I'm still on an earlier version of TypeScript, so I don't know if later versions have fixed this. We ran into trouble when creating knockout view models in type script. Basically, TypeScript was losing track of 'this', and the trick of using var self=this in the the "constructor" wasn't valid. We made it work, but it wasn't pretty and it certainly wasn't idiomatic typescript. Basically the problem was that we were trying to write TypeScript like we were writing C#, instead of treating typescript like a layer on top of JavaScript.
      - lucian1900 13y ago
        TypeScript's ES6 lambdas are actually closures over `this` as well, the compiler will insert `var _self = this;` in the enclosing scope if you have a lambda. Yeah, you do have to know JavaScript, since TypeScript only adds a few ES6 features and types.
      - jvilk 13y ago
        Earlier versions of TypeScript had some significant typing issues in my experience, especially related to typechecking static fields on object instances (which you can't access through object instances -- you have to go through the class object). Since the 0.9.5 release, I don't think I've had any particular issues with typechecking or the language. And as someone mentioned, if you use lambdas, the compiler will automatically handle performing the `var _this = this;` trick for you under-the-hood. > we were trying to write TypeScript like we were writing C# Yeah, you really need to approach writing TypeScript as if you are writing idiomatic JavaScript. I'm happy that I went through the JavaScript mill before discovering TypeScript, as it informed how I developed my project.
      - dpratt71 13y ago
CmonDev 13y ago
The only thing needed now is a higher-level version of HTML... Something like XAML for instance.
- tvxedoman 13y ago
  Like HAML or Jade?
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    Do they have: 1) strong IDE support 2) rich control libraries ?
    - bjcy 13y ago
      XAML doesn't necessarily have strong IDE support, either. Although integrated into VS, it really is no comparison to the "REPL" of HTML/CSS + your favorite text editor and a browser.
      - Spearchucker 13y ago
        Not sure I understand your use of REPL - in Visual Studio you edit XAML in the right pane, and the change is reflected in the left pane as you type. That's more efficient than editing HTML or CSS in a text editor, saving, switching to browser, refreshing page. Can you explain?
        sehr 13y ago
        That's entirely dependent on your workflow isn't it? I can set up a workspace within dev tools and edit HTML/CSS/JS on the fly and have the changes reflected on disk and on screen without ever losing sight of my work. Add in the networking tools (timelines, profiles etc..) and I have full featured 'IDE' that I can also browse hackernews with.
        radicalbyte 13y ago
        The XAML editor in Visual Studio was broken for years. Blend, once you learn how to use it, is a much nicer tool. In any case, unlike HTML you really don't want to be writing XAML by hand.
rubiquity 13y ago
> "As a former CoffeeScript user, I love TypeScript: it's a more consistent language driven by a real language designer" I have a lot of respect for Anders Hejlsberg but this is a pretty unfair slight against Jeremy Ashkenas just because he hasn't created another language before. CoffeeScript was pretty revolutionary in its approach, as evidenced by the 30+ other to-JS languages that followed it. As long as you agree with its ideaology it is well designed. I'd also argue that a community, and at the very least a team, is what designs a language and not just a single person. The language might start as a vision by a single person but ultimately it is driven by something more collaborative. To be the contrarian here, the belief of "fixing" a dynamic language by adding static types to it is a bunch of crap.
- Locke1689 13y ago
  I'd also argue that a community, and at the very least a team, is what designs a language and not just a single person. The language might start as a vision by a single person but ultimately it is driven by something more collaborative. I disagree and think it's a good way to make a language bad. The first way to make mistakes in a language is not to look at the math. The second way is to have no "taste."[1] Communities are not widely regarded for their ability to design cohesive tasteful systems. That comes from a singular vision that is realized by a community. [1] It's hard to provide a succinct definition of taste in a language, but mostly it comes from picking a style of programming and then ruthlessly cutting features which can't fit into that style.
jvilk 13y ago
I also switched two of my research projects over to TypeScript from CoffeeScript [1,2]. I'd like to state up-front that CoffeeScript still has its merits in certain scenarios; they are two very different projects, despite both providing convenient `Class` abstractions over prototype-based inheritance. With that said, using TypeScript has vastly decreased the amount of mental state I need to keep in my head when I develop one of my projects. The compiler uses the type annotations to double-check my logic, and Visual Studio gives me the ability to easily refactor interfaces as if I were using a statically typed language [3]. I could go on... but I will spare you the blog post. :) I really wish there was a free or cross-platform alternative to Visual Studio for TypeScript autocomplete and IntelliSense. The WebStorm IDE claims to support TypeScript, but it gives me tons of incorrect compilation errors in my current projects. I hope it matures so there is an alternative. Anyone working on TypeScript tooling that is comparable to VS for different editors (e.g. Sublime)? EDIT: Whoa, I completely missed this in the blog post; palantir is developing an Eclipse plugin [4]. They also developed a tool that converts CoffeeScript projects to TypeScript; interesting [5]. [1] https://github.com/int3/doppio https://github.com/int3/doppio Doppio: A JVM in TypeScript [2] https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS BrowserFS: A full-featured file-system in your browser that emulates the Node fs API [3] I'm referring to trivial refactorings -- renaming function/variable names and such. Refactors that are more complex, such as changing the function signature, must be done manually at call sites, but the compiler will catch your errors if you mess up or forget one. [4] https://github.com/palantir/eclipse-typescript https://github.com/palantir/eclipse-typescript [5] https://github.com/palantir/coffeescript-to-typescript https://github.com/palantir/coffeescript-to-typescript
- reddit_clone 13y ago
  There is some emacs support for TypeScript. Not sure how good it is.
  - jvilk 13y ago
    I think it's just syntax highlighting, like the current ST support [1]. There's notable vim support [2], but... I prefer GUI editors for IDE-style development. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/10/01/sublime-text-vi-emacs-typescript-enabled.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/10/01/... [2] https://github.com/leafgarland/typescript-vim https://github.com/leafgarland/typescript-vim
radicalbyte 13y ago
We've been using TypeScript here at triggre.com. We're really pleased with it. The type system catches a lot of errors that would have otherwise cost a lot of QA time to identify.
rbanffy 13y ago
> While baking TypeScript into Visual Studio isn't a certainty of its future success (e.g. Silverlight), it is a good indicator of Microsoft's commitment to the language. It's also no indicator of continued commitment (Silverlight, WebClasses). TypeScript is an intriguing language. It's much closer to vanilla JavaScript than CoffeeScript and that may make it feel more comfortable to JS users. It's too soon to guess which approaches will prevail on the long run, so, one may as well hedge bets.

by judah 13y ago

k__ 13y ago

I like the ideas of Dart much more, but the JavaScript-interop is rather bad in Dart, because of the DartVM focus. TypeScript seems C# flange-mounted on top of JavaScript, but it's probaby the only viable alternative with good js-interop...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jmcqk6 13y ago
That's probably because TypeScript has more in common with CoffeeScript than Dart as a language. Dart is a full featured language that can stand on it's own and has it's own runtime. TypeScript is a superscript of javascript. It doesn't have a runtime - it gets transcompiled into javascript. If coffeescript is for writing javascript like you would write python or ruby, then typescript is for writing javascript like you would C#. I've used TypeScript on a large project I'm working on. Sometimes I regret it. I went with typescript mainly because I was not as confident that I could just jump into building a large JS codebase. Now that I've been in that world for a year, many times I'm wishing that I had just gone with JS from the start, or maybe limited my use of TypeScript to just type annotations.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  I haven't found any disadvantage to TypeScript over JavaScript. It's also trivial to switch, since compilation mostly just removes type annotations. I have however been annoyed at not being able to use sweet.js macros.
  - jmcqk6 13y ago
    I'm still on an earlier version of TypeScript, so I don't know if later versions have fixed this. We ran into trouble when creating knockout view models in type script. Basically, TypeScript was losing track of 'this', and the trick of using var self=this in the the "constructor" wasn't valid. We made it work, but it wasn't pretty and it certainly wasn't idiomatic typescript. Basically the problem was that we were trying to write TypeScript like we were writing C#, instead of treating typescript like a layer on top of JavaScript.
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      TypeScript's ES6 lambdas are actually closures over `this` as well, the compiler will insert `var _self = this;` in the enclosing scope if you have a lambda. Yeah, you do have to know JavaScript, since TypeScript only adds a few ES6 features and types.
    - jvilk 13y ago
      Earlier versions of TypeScript had some significant typing issues in my experience, especially related to typechecking static fields on object instances (which you can't access through object instances -- you have to go through the class object). Since the 0.9.5 release, I don't think I've had any particular issues with typechecking or the language. And as someone mentioned, if you use lambdas, the compiler will automatically handle performing the `var _this = this;` trick for you under-the-hood. > we were trying to write TypeScript like we were writing C# Yeah, you really need to approach writing TypeScript as if you are writing idiomatic JavaScript. I'm happy that I went through the JavaScript mill before discovering TypeScript, as it informed how I developed my project.
    - dpratt71 13y ago

CmonDev 13y ago

The only thing needed now is a higher-level version of HTML... Something like XAML for instance.

tvxedoman 13y ago
Like HAML or Jade?
- CmonDev 13y ago
  Do they have: 1) strong IDE support 2) rich control libraries ?
  - bjcy 13y ago
    XAML doesn't necessarily have strong IDE support, either. Although integrated into VS, it really is no comparison to the "REPL" of HTML/CSS + your favorite text editor and a browser.
    - Spearchucker 13y ago
      Not sure I understand your use of REPL - in Visual Studio you edit XAML in the right pane, and the change is reflected in the left pane as you type. That's more efficient than editing HTML or CSS in a text editor, saving, switching to browser, refreshing page. Can you explain?
      - sehr 13y ago
        That's entirely dependent on your workflow isn't it? I can set up a workspace within dev tools and edit HTML/CSS/JS on the fly and have the changes reflected on disk and on screen without ever losing sight of my work. Add in the networking tools (timelines, profiles etc..) and I have full featured 'IDE' that I can also browse hackernews with.
      - radicalbyte 13y ago
        The XAML editor in Visual Studio was broken for years. Blend, once you learn how to use it, is a much nicer tool. In any case, unlike HTML you really don't want to be writing XAML by hand.

rubiquity 13y ago

> "As a former CoffeeScript user, I love TypeScript: it's a more consistent language driven by a real language designer" I have a lot of respect for Anders Hejlsberg but this is a pretty unfair slight against Jeremy Ashkenas just because he hasn't created another language before. CoffeeScript was pretty revolutionary in its approach, as evidenced by the 30+ other to-JS languages that followed it. As long as you agree with its ideaology it is well designed. I'd also argue that a community, and at the very least a team, is what designs a language and not just a single person. The language might start as a vision by a single person but ultimately it is driven by something more collaborative. To be the contrarian here, the belief of "fixing" a dynamic language by adding static types to it is a bunch of crap.

Locke1689 13y ago
I'd also argue that a community, and at the very least a team, is what designs a language and not just a single person. The language might start as a vision by a single person but ultimately it is driven by something more collaborative. I disagree and think it's a good way to make a language bad. The first way to make mistakes in a language is not to look at the math. The second way is to have no "taste."[1] Communities are not widely regarded for their ability to design cohesive tasteful systems. That comes from a singular vision that is realized by a community. [1] It's hard to provide a succinct definition of taste in a language, but mostly it comes from picking a style of programming and then ruthlessly cutting features which can't fit into that style.

jvilk 13y ago

I also switched two of my research projects over to TypeScript from CoffeeScript [1,2]. I'd like to state up-front that CoffeeScript still has its merits in certain scenarios; they are two very different projects, despite both providing convenient `Class` abstractions over prototype-based inheritance. With that said, using TypeScript has vastly decreased the amount of mental state I need to keep in my head when I develop one of my projects. The compiler uses the type annotations to double-check my logic, and Visual Studio gives me the ability to easily refactor interfaces as if I were using a statically typed language [3]. I could go on... but I will spare you the blog post. :) I really wish there was a free or cross-platform alternative to Visual Studio for TypeScript autocomplete and IntelliSense. The WebStorm IDE claims to support TypeScript, but it gives me tons of incorrect compilation errors in my current projects. I hope it matures so there is an alternative. Anyone working on TypeScript tooling that is comparable to VS for different editors (e.g. Sublime)? EDIT: Whoa, I completely missed this in the blog post; palantir is developing an Eclipse plugin [4]. They also developed a tool that converts CoffeeScript projects to TypeScript; interesting [5]. [1] https://github.com/int3/doppio https://github.com/int3/doppio Doppio: A JVM in TypeScript [2] https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS https://github.com/jvilk/BrowserFS BrowserFS: A full-featured file-system in your browser that emulates the Node fs API [3] I'm referring to trivial refactorings -- renaming function/variable names and such. Refactors that are more complex, such as changing the function signature, must be done manually at call sites, but the compiler will catch your errors if you mess up or forget one. [4] https://github.com/palantir/eclipse-typescript https://github.com/palantir/eclipse-typescript [5] https://github.com/palantir/coffeescript-to-typescript https://github.com/palantir/coffeescript-to-typescript

reddit_clone 13y ago
There is some emacs support for TypeScript. Not sure how good it is.
- jvilk 13y ago
  I think it's just syntax highlighting, like the current ST support [1]. There's notable vim support [2], but... I prefer GUI editors for IDE-style development. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/10/01/sublime-text-vi-emacs-typescript-enabled.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2012/10/01/... [2] https://github.com/leafgarland/typescript-vim https://github.com/leafgarland/typescript-vim

radicalbyte 13y ago

We've been using TypeScript here at triggre.com. We're really pleased with it. The type system catches a lot of errors that would have otherwise cost a lot of QA time to identify.

rbanffy 13y ago

> While baking TypeScript into Visual Studio isn't a certainty of its future success (e.g. Silverlight), it is a good indicator of Microsoft's commitment to the language. It's also no indicator of continued commitment (Silverlight, WebClasses). TypeScript is an intriguing language. It's much closer to vanilla JavaScript than CoffeeScript and that may make it feel more comfortable to JS users. It's too soon to guess which approaches will prevail on the long run, so, one may as well hedge bets.