8 ms·
As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?
by usingpond 12y ago
As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?
- Bahamut 12y agoAngular 2 was being written in AtScript - in practice, not much has changed, just that Google and Microsoft are collaborating here and unifying efforts.
- thebouv 12y agoI think the important part here isn't that it is AtScript or TypeScript or ES6. It's that they're collaborating. I'm pretty sure that's a sign of the Apocalypse. We may want to stop worrying about transpiling and pay closer attention to the skies, looking for raining frogs and or blood moons.
- dmarg 12y agoI am pretty sure that TypeScript just adds type safety and is optional. I don't see this as a huge negative and I actually see this as a positive. Just curious, what and why are all your reasons to move away from Angular?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- WalterSear 12y ago- Breaking changes - Obtuse, verbose, non-performant code - Did I mention breaking changes?
- agumonkey 12y agoOn the other side, the ember guys released a drop-in update.
- EugeneOZ 12y agoPretty performant, see notes: http://t.co/gyBhc5jWzI http://t.co/gyBhc5jWzI (or streaming video right now)
- jhall1468 12y agoBecause progress sucks. I still don't see why we don't continue using IE 6.
- WalterSear 12y agoProgress is great. IMHO, Angular isn't progress, and neither is painting yourself into a corner.
- jhall1468 12y agoAccording to you it isn't. And that's the fundamental problem here... opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and yours certainly isn't worth more than mine.
- WalterSear 12y agoI don't know about that. I contributed to protractor and have worked with members of the Angular team in the past. Opinions maybe useless, but some opinions are more useless than others.
- shubhamjain 12y agoIf type safety was the issue, couldn't they have tried Facebook's Flow[1] which believe would have reduced the technical overhead by large? [1]: http://flowtype.org/ http://flowtype.org/
- Bahamut 12y agoTypeScript has been around longer, and is more widely used. FWIW, the Angular team mentioned they talked with the Flow team - not sure what that will mean in the near term, but I get the impression that efforts might be in progress to unify the different libraries' efforts.
- ahoge 12y agoFlow doesn't work on Windows yet. Atom seems to be the only editor which supports it. That plugin had its 2nd release just 3 days ago.
- zghst 12y agoIf I can get Flow to work in vim, I am sure it works in more than just Atom
- ahoge 12y agoDefine "get to work". I mean something like this: https://atom.io/packages/ide-flow https://atom.io/packages/ide-flow Tool-tips, call-tips, auto-complete, type checking, and so forth. The kind of stuff you get with TypeScript or Dart.
- usingpond 12y ago- Not-so-great documentation. - Lengthy learning curve. - Not concerned with performance at all (can be a nightmare on mobile devices with low RAM). - Google's history of throwing away and/or deprecating projects, (see Angular v1). - I still have yet to see a Google website using Angular in any large capacity. - Ecosystem lock-in. It tries to do a LOT of stuff, and you generally need to be doing all these things the Angular Way™.
- adamnemecek 12y ago> - Not concerned with performance what are the performance issues with TS?
- usingpond 12y agoNo, that's Angular that has the perf issues.
- adamnemecek 12y agoOh, I see. NVM then.
- jonesetc 12y agoI think this was a jab at Angular, not TS.
- bceagle 12y ago> Not concerned with performance at all I would strongly disagree. Watch this link to when Igor talks about Angular performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHulaj5ZxbI&t=35m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHulaj5ZxbI&t=35m30s
- robmcm 12y ago> I still have yet to see a Google website using Angular in any large capacity. Angular is not intended for typical "websites". It's for replacing what would previously have been desktop CRUD applications. Google use it extensively for internal tooling. It's also worth remembering that most public facing Google applications have been around for years, decades even. It would take a long time to replace one of these with Angular, even if there was a desire to do so.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- iends 12y agoTypescript is a microscopic leap from JavaScript.
- WorldWideWayne 12y agoFor some reason, I doubt that people here would be complaining about learning a language that resembles the next version of Javascript if it didn't come from Microsoft.
- bdcravens 12y agoProbably, but that's a legitimate concern. Even with Microsoft's recent open source moves (which I think are pretty awesome), we've had a history of having Microsoft force languages and extensions down our throat in an attempt to usurp the open web and standards: ActiveX, VBScript in IE, .hta's, Silverlight, etc. The counter to that is that TypeScript is Apache-licensed. However, you can't erase history by throwing up a Github repo. Moreover, I'm hearing more people say they don't trust relying on a big corp for their client-framework. I think many don't disagree with that idea, but more or less trust Google, so they embrace Angular with prejudice. Anything with Microsoft's signature feels less open, and may push some past that tipping point.
- discreteevent 12y agoIronically your comment could be taken as a classic example of the kind of FUD Microsoft used to spread. You give examples from the past that, you admit, clearly don't apply. You talk about "feels less open" when it is factually not. You speculate on others (who are they?) being pushed past a tipping point. Doubt, doubt, doubt and fear, fear, fear when in fact there's nothing you can point to in reality to back it up.
- bdcravens 12y agoYour response seems defensive. I'm not speaking to Microsoft's motives, but to the psychology of developers who have been exposed to "embrace, extend, extinguish" for many years. They don't deserve trust just because "we're nice now, we promise". The same way that Google's shuttering of services over and over earns them a bit of discomfort amongst their users.
- 12y ago
- davesque 12y agoYes, but Typescript is worth learning IMHO.
- BinaryIdiot 12y agoThis is the main reason why I don't like using languages that transpile into JavaScript. I don't mind the languages themselves but transpiling into JavaScript now means you have to be effective in both languages instead of one to properly debug and you're also subjected to bugs that may or may not be known in the transpile itself. Everyone seems to hate on JavaScript but it's really not that bad to use.
- jherdman 12y agoTranspiling may actually be the safest way to use JavaScript, especially given its rate of change. Take, for instance, a number of features trickling down the ECMA2015 pipe: modules, classes, "let", etc. Using these features without a transpiler, such as Babel, is simply not possible. A transpiler allows you to use these features now without any worry. Not all transpilers may be to your taste, but they have their place.
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago> Transpiling may actually be the safest way to use JavaScript, especially given its rate of change. [..] A transpiler allows you to use these features now without any worry. I disagree and my original statement applies as much to TypeScript as it does to an ECMAScript 6 transpiler. If you want to use the new features and you're transpiling now you need to have a good understanding of the differences between ECMAScript 5 and 6 and you open yourself up to possible bugs in the transpiler. Instead you could just write ECMAScript 5 until 6 is more widely available. Sure no one likes to wait but it requires the least amount of expertise and lower chance of bugs from a 3rd party interfering with your application.
- spion 12y agoI feel more comfortable writing TypeScript rather than using an ES6 transpiler, really. The compiler is built really well - you can observe the team's development process on github and I have to say the level is quite impressive (extensive code reviews and great discussions on the issue tracker).
- fryguy 12y agoWould you complain if a c++ project started using c++/14 features, because "now you need to learn c++/14 to contribute or grok the source files?" Typescript is really just Javascript with type checking, and what would be used in browsers if they didn't have to deal with backwards compatibility.
- RussianCow 12y agoI don't think that analogy is valid. It's more like if a C++ project started using a bunch of proprietary third-party language extensions, in which case, yes, I would complain because I have to learn some non-standard C++ derivative in order to be able to read the source code.
- fryguy 12y agoI disagree. Typescript is just ECMAScript 6, with type annotations. Most of the differences come from the language changes (ES5 -> ES6), than the superset that Typescript explicitly adds.
- RussianCow 12y ago> Typescript is just ECMAScript 6, with type annotations. Then it's not "just ECMAScript 6", is it? Anyway, I'm not saying TypeScript doesn't have merit--in fact, I'm considering using it in my next web app. I'm just saying that using TypeScript is a tradeoff that's not without drawbacks, since you're now dependent on a new set of tools and new additions to the syntax (which means, for instance, that your editor/IDE has to specifically support TypeScript). You could say the same about ES6, but at least the latter is at some point going to be standard among browsers (and the tools won't be needed).
- mikerichards 12y agoI don't see what the trade-off is. You can just take the transpiling output and go home if you want. Out of all the languages that transpile to JavaScript, Typescript is probably the least risky because it is just JavaScript if you want it to be just JavaScript.
- smrtinsert 12y agoThat's why I only use assembly. Why would I bother learning C? Now I have two problems!
- usingpond 12y agoYou can put "C developer" on your resume, good luck shopping around "Typescript developer" experience.