Has everyone forgotten ES4? Blasts from the past:
https://brendaneich.com/2007/11/my-media-ajax-keynote/
and then
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html
ES4 failed in part because of AS3 namespaces (from original JS2/ES4
namespaces in 1999, also in JScript.NET in 2000, IIRC; inspired by
Common Lisp symbol packages), but also because on the Web it's very hard
to know *when* to typecheck. Code loads all the time. Judgments may be
invalidated down the road. The "any" type requires runtime checking.
So "strong typing" if it means "what AS3 does" bounced, hard.
The best we have in its place are the compile-to-JS langauges with
optional and unsound type
If you want warnings, use WarnScript (er, TypeScript or Dart or ...).
If you want standardized warnings, we need lots more developer
experience from TypeScript and other languages to get anywhere near a
standard. ES8 at the earliest, given our move toward more rapid releases.
If you want a static type system -- which means soundness -- then there
are big open research problems to solve.
/be
J B wrote:
@Jeremy: I mean the parser will strip all of the typing info out
before it's compiled/interpreted.
@Axel: "Evolving a language standard used as broadly as ECMAScript
takes time" -- I agree.
"You can see TypeScript as exploring future options for ECMAScript."
-- Wasn't AS3 already doing this?
"Guards" -- Looks good...
"TypeScript tracks JavaScript very closely, I would not consider it a
different language." It's compiled, and it's one of many options
available, which presents a problem in that if one code base is
written in TypeScript, and another in JavaScript++ will they be
compatible? Even if the resulting JS is, devs will be required to
learn several variants of JS. It's not that this isn't happening
elsewhere (libraries written in Java vs C#), but it's been made worse
by ECMAScript's lack of key features, which has caused a good many of
these languages to appear, and to be used. My point is, if JS was a
little more large scale development friendly (like TypeScript), devs
could just use plain ol' JS! Sure, some would still use language
extensions like TypeScript, but at least it wouldn't be the defacto
standard because of core inadequacies in base language.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeremy Martin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I mean it's a parse error that will throw prior to attempting to
execute it. For example, consider:
(function() { var foo:String; })
This will throw an error, despite the fact that the function
hasn't been invoked. I replied in haste, though... your point is
obviously valid for other scenarios. Nonetheless, as a
non-authoritative response, you're going to need an argument far
more compelling than I can think of to see static typing seriously
considered.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, J B <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Are you referring to browsers like Chrome that compile the JS
first? Then, yeah, I mean it shouldn't throw an error at
compile time.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jeremy Martin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> var foo:String;
That's already a compile-time error (as opposed to
runtime.... not sure if that's what you meant by the
interpreter throwing an error).
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, J B <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853 <tel:661.312.3853>
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777
--
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853 <tel:661.312.3853>
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
