2 ms·

> "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 Hej

> "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.