On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM, John J Barton <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Some of the discussion on this thread amounts to "IDEs work great for > >> typed languages so let's make JS typed". What if we started with > >> "What would be great for JavaScript developers"? Then we would not > >> waste a lot of time talking about static analysis. It's the wrong > >> tool. > > > > Why are you assuming that conclusion already? Why not answer your own > question "What would be great for JavaScript developers?" and if the answer > includes type inference, great? > > I'm assuming that conclusion already because the current tools for JS > development are so incredibly lame that wasting time on static > analysis -- which we know does not work without changing the language > -- defies common sense. > I think you may be a little confused. Type "inference" means inferring types without annotations. Thus, it can be done without changing the language and can be useful for vm implementers and tool developers alike. Today. Sounds pretty common-sensical to me.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
