On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM, John Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Static checking will be limited anyway. If you want to go this way you >>> should use typescript. >>> >>> >> That's the point that I'm trying to make, shops will choose other >> languages that provide more static information. We should be thinking >> about expanding the user base and ensuring that JS is a viable option years >> down the road. >> > > JavaScript's enormous user base is the strongest possible evidence that > static analysis provides no advantage to programming language viability. > Static analysis may encourage some new users; overall complexity may > discourage as many. (I recently started using a typed version of JS; I am > not impressed.) > > Any survey of the top languages in actual use clear demonstrates that the > runtime platform and app goals dominate language choice. Even within a > platform it is clear static checks are way down the list of valued > features. > > Rather than point towards type-checking, I think we should focus on the > actual checks offered by the module design. It seems that these would come > with a small cost quite unlike type-checking. > Static analysis would be necessary if JavaScript ever wanted to make macros possible in modules. I don't have exact numbers nor have I done any formal surveys, but the general response to Sweet.js has been overwhelmingly positive. It would be a shame to close that door. Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
