It’s close, but not quite the same, from a cursory read. Thanks for sharing
though.
To respond to the original post, I don’t think something rigidly formal would
work out given how many wildly different opinions are out there - thinking out
loud, but perhaps something underlying similar to
Sorry, new link:
https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported-types.html
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 8:34 PM Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TS supports JSDocs already
>
>
TS supports JSDocs already
https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-checking-javascript-files.html#supported-jsdoc
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 8:31 PM Bergi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > They don't want to add TS to their stack.
>
> Then what else would they want to add to their stack? Notice one
This feels like rich territory for a blog post, if someone feels qualified?
Specifically, just running the typescript tool chain for jsdoc annotations,
which are excellent for all the reasons mentioned above (comments only, vanilla
js etc).
> On 17. Aug 2020, at 19:35, Andrea Giammarchi
>
> This feels like rich territory for a blog post, if someone feels
qualified? Specifically, just running the typescript tool chain for jsdoc
annotations, which are excellent for all the reasons mentioned above
(comments only, vanilla js etc).
Does this count?
Hi,
> They don't want to add TS to their stack.
Then what else would they want to add to their stack? Notice one doesn't
necessarily need the TypeScript Compiler to add TypeScript- or Flow-like
type annotations and remove them in a build step - Babel for example
could do that just fine as well.
JSDoc is not dead (far from it), people just don't frequently use
automated docs generation tooling in the JS community. Most the actual
use JSDoc provides nowadays is editor autocomplete hints and
integrating with TypeScript (in cases where changing the extension
isn't possible for whatever
7 matches
Mail list logo
