News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by munificent on Friday April 20, 2018 @12:56PM (#16886438)
TypeScript has a comparatively easier job because the type system is unsound. They can add new type features without needing to be paranoid about a hole in the system or a usability pitfall because the tools don't rely on types for correctness or optimization, and because users can easily cast to "any" or otherwise work around an annoyance.

When you want the whole system to actually deeply rely on the static type system, it needs to be much more robust, and that takes a lot of effort.

I'm not trying to minimize what the TypeScript folks are doing — it's a really nice, well-designed language. But the complexity required to evolve an optionally-typed language is closer to that of a dynamically-typed one than a statically-typed one.

Re:Towards Scala 3 by stephen on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:47PM (#16886877)
Good point; I've mused before that dynamic languages will always be a ~generation ahead of static languages, due to what you point out, that type systems are hard, and very few people start working on a new type system as their hobby project (vs. hacking out a new syntax with an interpreter).

But I hadn't appreciated the difference in difficulty between an unsound type system like TS and Scala's type system...

I guess I've taken the formalism that underlies Scala's type system (e.g. the academic research behind dotty) as a given/for granted, but you're likely right, that TS can move faster because it doesn't need/have that level of rigor.

Thanks!

Re:Towards Scala 3 by hota_mazi on Friday April 20, 2018 @09:36PM (#16889561)
> I've mused before that dynamic languages will always be a ~generation ahead of static language

Did you mean "behind"?

The trend is pretty clear: dynamically typed languages are disappearing and all the popular modern languages are statically typed with type inference.

Most dynamically typed languages are busy adding static safety through gradual or opt-in typing, but you don't see the other way around.

Javascript will probably be the last major dynamically typed language we ever had to use.

Re:Towards Scala 3 by bonesss on Saturday April 21, 2018 @09:22AM (#16891325)
> dynamically typed languages are disappearing and all the popular modern languages are statically typed with type inference

It does seems that all the dynamic languages are learning what the systems people knew in the 70s: for the Enterprise, correctness counts.

A happy v1 is only 10% of the story... Getting to v225.5, warts and all, is just something else.

Re:Towards Scala 3 by naasking on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:32PM (#16886737)
Is it actually unsound if you perform no casting? That seems to be a more interesting property, because then the additions they're making still have to mesh cohesively.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by munificent on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:49PM (#16886894)
> Is it actually unsound if you perform no casting?

Yeah, it is. At the very least, I know that function parameters are bivariant, which isn't sound:

    function foo(callback: (obj: Object) => void) {
      callback("not a bool");
    }

    function main() {
      foo(function (bool: Boolean) {
        if (bool) window.console.log("!");
      });
    }
This compiles without a type error but ends up assigning a string to a parameter of type bool.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by ItsMe000001 on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:01PM (#16887011)
I'm a Flow user rather than TS (and Flow complains about that code out of the box), but you are not telling us all:

Since TS 2.6, if you enable all the optional "strict" mode checks than TypeScript does complain about that code.

I see no disadvantage in those checks, e.g. "strictFunctionTypes", being optional, since you can always make them mandatory for your own project(s).

To test it:

- Go to the TS Playground at https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/

- Enter the above code

- Select "Options" and enable at least "strictFunctionTypes"

Re:Towards Scala 3 by naasking on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:07PM (#16887063)
Is that option documented somewhere? I imagine there are some tradeoffs with enabling it.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by ItsMe000001 on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:14PM (#16887139)
https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/t...

> TypeScript 2.6 introduces a new strict checking flag, --strictFunctionTypes.

> The --strictFunctionTypes switch is part of the --strict family of switches, meaning that it defaults to on in --strict mode.

> Under --strictFunctionTypes function type parameter positions are checked contravariantly instead of bivariantly.

> ...(etc.)

Re:Towards Scala 3 by naasking on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:28PM (#16887288)
Contravariance then, right. Thanks! I haven't gotten into Typescript yet, and at this point it looks fairly large and a little daunting, so this is helpful.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by tomerbd on Saturday April 21, 2018 @02:01AM (#16890186)
And this project is super interesting: https://1c.wizawu.com/#/whatis Use TypeScript on JVM with both NPM and Maven dependencies
Re:Towards Scala 3 by coryfklein on Friday April 20, 2018 @05:08PM (#16888446)
The major tradeoff, IMO, is that it is even toggle-able at all, let alone being a feature switch that is enabled by default.

If you enter any random TS project today, odds are it isn't using that switch, and enabling the switch will lead you down a month long rabbit-hole of fixing cascading type errors.

Re:Towards Scala 3 by bjterry on Friday April 20, 2018 @10:23PM (#16889672)
Not only that, but since it isn't required many libraries in the ecosystem won't be using it. Comparing my experiences with TypeScript and Flow vs. my experiences with Haskell, any optional type system is going to leave a lot of gaps if you don't have a pretty strict not-invented-here culture.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by ihsw2 on Friday April 20, 2018 @02:23PM (#16887224)
Tradeoffs? It might frustrate some people more accustomed to JS' loose type system.
Re:Towards Scala 3 by raquo on Friday April 20, 2018 @01:46PM (#16886863)
Yes, look at how it deals with type param variance for example. It doesn't.