On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:03 AM, John J Barton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, <es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org> 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
Ok, your assumed conclusion rests on a prior assumption: > static analysis ... we know does not work without changing the language Evidence? It seems to me you have not studied either http://doctorjs.org, which is nodejs based, the code is on github (it's all JS, essentially a fork of narcissus via Patrick Walton's jsctags): https://github.com/mozilla/doctorjs or Brian Hackett's work in SpiderMonkey (Patrick Walton made a JS version of it, should be easier to study: https://github.com/pcwalton/doctorjsmm Really, asserting an assumption to back up an assumed conclusion? /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
