Oh! TypeScript ... I forgot about that. I see a new project wizard template in VS2015, so I might as well lick it and see what happens.
What you've all been saying is interesting about productivity and trends and such, but one overriding issue keeps slapping me: JavaScript is the wrong tool to construct any serious application. Notice is called java *Script*. It's a technically wonderful example of a dynamic scripting language, which combined with its slightly functional feel means you can mould it into almost anything, which has happened many times over (too many times!). As my code expanded yesterday I felt like I was building an airplane out of string and glue, at which point I threw in the towel. Lack of an IDE just compounded the situation. As a refresher, read the article on Shell script <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_script> which has some sobering generally applicable comments further down about the advantages and limits of scripting. *GK* *Many modern shells also supply various features usually found only in more sophisticated general-purpose programming languages, such as control-flow constructs, variables, comments, arrays, subroutine and so on. With these sorts of features available, it is possible to write reasonably sophisticated applications as shell scripts. However, they are still limited by the fact that most shell languages have little or no support for data typing systems, classes, threading, complex math, and other common full language features, and are also generally much slower than compiled code or interpreted languages written with speed as a performance goal.* *Shell scripts often serve as an initial stage in software development, and are often subject to conversion later to a different underlying implementation...* On 10 August 2015 at 14:19, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 at 13:39 Scott Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I disagree, i think people are constantly asking the "better" question. >> > > [ ... ] > > but i'd argue that if the devs had the choice over ECMA 6, CSS3 and HTML5 >> vs ECMA 3x, CSS2 and HTML5 ...i'd probably guess what the $100 spends would >> bring back, that is better typescript style language support which would >> ideally compliment their practices and behaviours today (plus tooling could >> probably lock onto better more focused patterns of code). >> >> If you can argue (or anyone) that breadth has no factoring into the >> JavaScript as a nominated "answer" then I'd be curious to see how you avoid >> that subject. It has to be the driver behind its adoption. >> > > I think JS' breadth IS why it is the "answer". > > I have turned into a pragmatist in my middle age and would look straight > past the fact that it is software engineering arse and embrace it and look > to what breadth does for shareholder returns. > > David. > > > > > -- > David Connors > [email protected] | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363 >
