News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by dom0 on Friday June 30, 2017 @07:56PM (#14674341)
> It's just that dynamic languages outcompeted them.

All "trending" languages are statically typed (Rust, Go, Swift, Kotlin, ...) and all the popular JavaScrip-improved-languages are statically typed as well. Even further, many dynamically typed languages have pushed in recent years to add type annotations or even static typing (e.g. mypy).

Dynamic typing is the brainchild of the 90s for rapid initial development. Sustainability has been a big issue from the outset.

Re:Why We Chose Typescript by kazinator on Friday June 30, 2017 @08:13PM (#14674421)
Dynamic typing is from 1958 Lisp. Your history is off a bit there, by some forty years.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by vorg on Friday June 30, 2017 @10:22PM (#14674984)
The 90's also saw much commercial experimentation with visual environments (e.g. Visual Basic, Delphi, JBuilder) with round-trip conversion between the layout form and underlying code. They were promoted for R.A.D. (rapid application development -- remember that acronym?) but, like dynamically typed languages, they also had sustainability issues.

Of course, like dynamic typing and Lisp, visual environments also had Smalltalk from way back, but they were before big business became infatuated with the ideas.

Re:Why We Chose Typescript by TimJYoung on Sunday July 02, 2017 @10:54AM (#14682735)
How do products like Delphi have sustainability (maintainability ?) issues ? Delphi/Object Pascal is statically-typed, so you can't even build an application that has issues with the code-behind for a form.

You can see errors at run-time from mismatches between the code-behind and the forms, but this has nothing to do with the language. It's just the way that certain products like Delphi decided to handle such mismatches. You'll see these types of issues with any code that performs run-time serialization/deserialization of class instances. Our product, Elevate Web Builder, uses a similar architecture with its WYSIWYG form designer/forms (they use JSON instead of a custom key-value format), but it simply ignores properties in forms that don't exist in the actual code.

Re:Why We Chose Typescript by dom0 on Friday June 30, 2017 @08:19PM (#14674456)
Lisp has nothing to do (in many ways) with the late 80s and 90s wave of dynamic languages.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by spot on Friday June 30, 2017 @11:01PM (#14675112)
JavaScript was definitely partly inspired by Scheme.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by zem on Saturday July 01, 2017 @03:01AM (#14675807)
likewise ruby by lisp
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by Gaelan on Saturday July 01, 2017 @03:27AM (#14675876)
I’d say Ruby’s closest sibling is Smalltalk personally.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by kazinator on Saturday July 01, 2017 @11:28AM (#14677494)
People say this mainly because of the brace-enclosed blocks of code being functions. However, that is really just a syntactic sugar for lambda (and can even have explicit arguments: (lambda (x y) ...) <--> {|x,y| ... }.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by zem on Saturday July 01, 2017 @05:14PM (#14679069)
there's the "everything is objects and messages sent to them" bit too, which is definitely from smalltalk. ruby took the good bits from several languages.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by bayesian_horse on Saturday July 01, 2017 @05:11AM (#14676195)
I've still not seen a single "sustainability issue" in Python code bases which seem to stem from dynamic typing as opposed to static typing.
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by christophilus on Saturday July 01, 2017 @02:06PM (#14678153)
I think Elixir is trending, and it's not statically typed, right?

That said, I do agree that static typing is in vogue.