Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript

Re:Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript by hajile on Thursday January 05, 2023 @08:46PM (#34269878)

I'd also add that Typescript would be a very bad language choice anyway. If we're going to have a backward-incompatible change, we should do things the right way (after all, we're stuck with it forever).

Don't make a type system work around the really bad parts of JS. Instead, don't allow them in typed modules. Don't settle for an intentionally unsound (aka broken ) type system. Add an actually sound (probably hindley-milner based) type system that provides usable type info to the JIT so we can guarantee fast, safe code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript by smt88 on Thursday January 05, 2023 @09:20PM (#34270129)

> If we're going to have a backward-incompatible change, we should do things the right way

It makes much more sense to use a good language (Kotlin, Rust, Java) and transpile to JavaScript. There's already great tooling for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript by genjii931 on Friday January 06, 2023 @06:18AM (#34273494)

Welcome to Nim.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript by jfengel on Friday January 06, 2023 @10:43AM (#34275928)

JavaScript seems an unlikely compiler target, forced on us out of the odd historical success of JS on the browser. I'd think that a better target would be to make a VM like WASM.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goodbye TypeScript, hello native typing for JavaScript by smt88 on Friday January 06, 2023 @05:47PM (#34282444)

If WASM were a viable target today, I'd agree, but it isn't yet.

Transpiling to JS is ready for production and widely compatible with all browsers already.

[ Parent | on HN ]