And to add to that, TypeScript also supports in-package type definitions, too. (Quite a few libraries elect to do this instead.) -----
Isiah Meadows [email protected] Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? Send me an email and we can get started. www.isiahmeadows.com On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Mark Volkmann <[email protected]> wrote: > That is why we have the websites definitelytyped.org and > https://github.com/flowtype/flow-typed. Sure they don’t have type > definitions for all libraries, but more are being added all the time and > developers can provide their own definitions to fill in the gaps. Being able > to use types, even when some libraries do not have type definitions is still > far better than not using types at all. > > --- > R. Mark Volkmann > Object Computing, Inc. > > On Jan 13, 2018, at 9:49 PM, Ranando King <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stripping the types does solve the runtime problem, but only at the cost of > creating another. Suppose a website imported a remote library with types in > it. There's no way that, with the types stripped at runtime, the remote > library and the local code could validate that each other were satisfying > their type requirements. That is a major issue. The simple process of > modularization reduces the usefulness of types that are stripped at runtime > to only validating the self-consistency of each individual module. Good unit > testing can already do that. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
