4 ms·
I am all for recreating JavaScript the way it should have been, but aren't the problems this tries to solve solvable with a good linter? (perhaps a very smart o
by eranation 12y ago
I am all for recreating JavaScript the way it should have been, but aren't the problems this tries to solve solvable with a good linter? (perhaps a very smart one, on the verge of a compiler, but still a linter)
I think TypeScript et al provide the needed type safety (until ES6 is fully supported) I'm just not sure we need a new "the good parts only" language. Didn't Google already try to do that with Dart?, I think Dart is great, but it still long way to go.
There a tons of bad things you can do with any language, Java, Scala, Ruby, Python that people don't do anymore and any automated style check / lint will fail. You don't go and remove parts from the language, you just have a good style check / lint plugin. I mean, you can use "go to" in the form of break to label in Java, but I don't see anyone using it much. This is very interesting, but I'm not sure it will get a lot of traction (mostly due to the need to rewrite huge parts of your code as they won't compile, vs gradually fixing your code using lint warnings). Am I missing something?
p.s. took me a minute to realize who is the OP (Jeremy Ashkenas of Backbone and CoffeeScript fame), I would love to hear your opinion on this, I highly respect it!
- gavinpc 12y ago> a good linter No doubt this is an evolution of Google Closure, which you might call a "very smart" linter. As the author of the O'Reilly book put it, If JSLint will hurt your feelings, Closure will put you into therapy.