And just to be clear, I'm not asking for run-time type checking or coercion; I'm simply asking that the interpreter not to thrown an error when it encounters something like this: var foo:String;
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM, J B <[email protected]> wrote: > For one, I wouldn't describe strong typing as a "pet feature". Two, no, as > far as I know, most of those languages in that list don't offer macros or > lots of parentheses; and, if they did, then, yeah, maybe it does say > something. > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Domenic Denicola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> In general ECMAScript lacks lots of features. You may well ask why it >> doesn't have any other pet feature, and you can often point to >> compile-to-JS languages that add those. This doesn't imply that the feature >> should be added to the language. >> >> Here, let me try: >> >> --- >> >> I'm aware of LispyScript, as well as all of these: >> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS >> . >> >> But those languages appear to have been created precisely because >> ECMAScript lacks features like lots of parentheses or macros. How many of >> those languages offer lots of parentheses? I count quite a few... Doesn't >> that say something? >> >> --- >> >> The existence of a feature in other languages does not imply it should be >> added to ECMAScript. You'll have to justify better than that why you think >> strong typing would be valuable to a language that has historically >> rejected it. (I'll wait for one of the old timers to chime in about the ES4 >> days here.) >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
