4 ms·

>TypeScript Why? What's wrong with js? >This rapid growth [of javascript] has outpaced the growth of the language itself, which lacks features that allow team

by danford 13y ago

>TypeScript Why? What's wrong with js? >This rapid growth [of javascript] has outpaced the growth of the language itself, which lacks features that allow teams to communicate requirements and build applications safely. what? I guess I'll just have to wait for the announcement. edit: After further investigation: http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/ http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/ It seems kind of cool, but aren't they just reinventing the wheel?

300bps 13y ago
>Why? What's wrong with js? There are two answers to this: at runtime, there's nothing wrong with Javascript. That's why TypeScript compiles to Javascript. At design time, however Javascript doesn't have features of modern languages. For example, class-based programming. Some of these features are planned for in future Javascript releases, but as a language it's really behind other languages and will likely remain so. This makes large-scale Javascript programs more difficult to maintain.
- camus2 13y ago
  Funny how MS deals with this js fiasco... they had Jscript.net , refused ECMASCRIPT 4 which was basically Jscript.net, and now come up with Typescript? And people still trust Microsoft after all this... but as a language it's really behind other languages and will likely remain so. This makes large-scale Javascript programs more difficult to maintain. You can thank Microsoft for that. They refused ES4 spec.
  - Stronico 13y ago
    IIRC - Typescript compiles to Javascript - it's a bit like coffee script, but with strong typing.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > You can thank Microsoft for that. They refused ES4 spec. Do not forget to thank Yahoo and Google as well. "Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and other 4th edition dissenters formed their own subcommittee to design a less ambitious update of ECMAScript 3, tentatively named ECMAScript 3.1" -- Wikipedia
- rbanffy 13y ago
  Not all programming languages need classes and static types, and these features are not requirements for large-scale projects. And there is plenty wrong with JavaScript at runtime. Lack of proper arrays is just one of the many things that come to mind. It's just a convenient runtime because it's good enough and ubiquitous.

by danford 13y ago

300bps 13y ago

>Why? What's wrong with js? There are two answers to this: at runtime, there's nothing wrong with Javascript. That's why TypeScript compiles to Javascript. At design time, however Javascript doesn't have features of modern languages. For example, class-based programming. Some of these features are planned for in future Javascript releases, but as a language it's really behind other languages and will likely remain so. This makes large-scale Javascript programs more difficult to maintain.

camus2 13y ago
Funny how MS deals with this js fiasco... they had Jscript.net , refused ECMASCRIPT 4 which was basically Jscript.net, and now come up with Typescript? And people still trust Microsoft after all this... but as a language it's really behind other languages and will likely remain so. This makes large-scale Javascript programs more difficult to maintain. You can thank Microsoft for that. They refused ES4 spec.
- Stronico 13y ago
  IIRC - Typescript compiles to Javascript - it's a bit like coffee script, but with strong typing.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > You can thank Microsoft for that. They refused ES4 spec. Do not forget to thank Yahoo and Google as well. "Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and other 4th edition dissenters formed their own subcommittee to design a less ambitious update of ECMAScript 3, tentatively named ECMAScript 3.1" -- Wikipedia
rbanffy 13y ago
Not all programming languages need classes and static types, and these features are not requirements for large-scale projects. And there is plenty wrong with JavaScript at runtime. Lack of proper arrays is just one of the many things that come to mind. It's just a convenient runtime because it's good enough and ubiquitous.