How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by switz on Sunday October 13, 2019 @02:53PM (#21242116)

You just gave me an idea.. because we've shared a similar experience.

I really miss the elegance of Coffeescript. ES6 is great, Typescript is great, but sometimes I feel like I have to visually parse a lot of static cruft to read the essence of the program.

What if one's editor had a toggle hotkey to hide typescript typings. Maybe you could turn it off to visually parse the program real quick, before turning it back on to edit it.

Hmm...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by AriaMinaei on Sunday October 13, 2019 @02:57PM (#21242151)

You're getting in the realm of "projectional editing." It's a fascinating idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15534555

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by minxomat on Sunday October 13, 2019 @03:16PM (#21242280)

Yep. You can take MPS today and implement an AST projection that looks like whatever you want. No parsing involved, impossible to even write syntactically invalid code (since it is not code you're writing, but an AST projection).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by switz on Sunday October 13, 2019 @04:31PM (#21242767)

I love reading about stuff like this, thanks for sharing. Developer UX still has a lot of room to grow.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by gherkinnn on Sunday October 13, 2019 @03:35PM (#21242404)

Interesting. I sometimes wish to only see the types and get rid of the rest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by droidist2 on Monday October 14, 2019 @06:18AM (#21246637)

What about instead maintaining the type definitions in a separate file, and then having the editor add in the type hinting?

[ Parent | on HN ]