I would argue that it lowers the barrier to entry for new people. There's a little bit of syntax that could be distracting, but with an editor that has typescript support, you can dive into a function and instantly know that types the arguments have. I often spend huge amounts of time tracing back a function's stack to figure out what shape an object passed to it is.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:40 PM, <mar...@maklesoft.com> wrote: > First of all, thanks for your answers! It's cool that you're taking the > time to discuss this. > > Being a fully open source project I like to see Polymer as a community > effort, even if the vast majority of contributions come from the core team. > I agree that the use of typescript might not affect anyone downstream but I > think it does significantly raise the barrier of entry for new people > wanting to contribute. But then maybe that is not necessarily a bad thing. > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-5, rictic wrote: >> >> I second that. For our node-based tools, the decision to go with >> typescript was very straightforward. Our use of typescript has no impact on >> anyone downstream, whether they use the tools as libraries or as binaries, >> as by the time the code is published in npm it's totally normal, legible, >> commented javascript. >> >> If typescript were to part ways with the standard, then we could migrate >> off of it with minimal effort. It's purely a labor saving device for those >> of us that contribute to the tools repos. >> >> I'm more skeptical than Justin of compile-to-javascript languages, but >> for Typescript the output looks so much like the input that it does not >> worry me or feel like a departure from the platform. >> >> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:08:31 PM UTC-7, Justin Fagnani wrote: >>> >>> Using TypeScript in tool has really helped our development process - >>> from documentation, refactoring, and code-completion, to the type checking >>> and errors that compliments our tests. We've been converting our tools >>> projects to TypeScript for months now, so this is nothing new. >>> >>> There are extremely few downsides that we've experienced in practice. >>> The TypeScript compiler is so fast that the project is build be the time we >>> switch tabs to run tests or a command. The main outstanding issue is stack >>> traces referencing the compiled output, but this hasn't been much of a >>> hinderance - the output is very similar to the input, and we're going to >>> look into source map support. I'm not aware what other drawbacks might be >>> big issues. >>> >>> I personally don't think that the "Use the Platform" philosophy is in >>> conflict with TypeScript, or many other compile-to-JS languages for that >>> matter - in node or the web. For tools, we don't run some huge abstraction >>> over node's processing model, or it's core libraries. On the web, all of >>> the critical platform features are available as with JS: The entire DOM, >>> including Custom Elements, Mutation Observer, Custom Events, Shadow DOM, >>> the CSSOM, and all JS features like classes, Promises, etc. TypeScript >>> doesn't define it's own object model, and always uses JS features directly. >>> >>> The tools team really needs to maximize it's output, and TypeScript >>> helps us do that while still targeting Node, which our customers >>> appreciate. so there's no reservations from us here. In fact, we grow >>> happier with the decision every day. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Justin >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Llewellyn <dan...@bowlhat.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Personally, I am a bit ambivalent towards Typescript. >>>> >>>> On one hand I like the types system helping me during development; but >>>> on the other, like you, I like to use the language of the platform natively >>>> to prevent weirdness in machine-written code that is less understandable to >>>> a human reader. The IO mentions of using the platform rather than >>>> abstractions also points towards not using Typescript. >>>> >>>> Sent from Nylas N1 <https://nylas.com/n1?ref=n1>, the extensible, open >>>> source mail client. >>>> On May 24 2016, at 7:06 pm, mar...@maklesoft.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> I mean nothing against Typescript but after all the talk at I/O about >>>>> sticking to standards and reducing the amount of necessary tooling, >>>>> whoever >>>>> thought this was a good idea? I understand that there are a lot of things >>>>> that speak for Typescript in general but I haven't seen it used anywhere >>>>> else in the Polymer ecosystem and I don't understand why the team chose to >>>>> start using it now. I'm not going to list all the reasons why I think this >>>>> is a bad idea - I think everybody in the team is aware of the drawbacks - >>>>> but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this. >>>>> >>>>> </rant> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but I just had to get this out of my system. Really love the >>>>> work you're doing! Keep it up! >>>>> >>>>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to polymer-dev...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/80b27bd8-d3ea-4de1-819c-9f1825084f38%40googlegroups.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/80b27bd8-d3ea-4de1-819c-9f1825084f38%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to polymer-dev...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/82rafzmqajtm5etkxzvm9okdi-0%40mailer.nylas.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/82rafzmqajtm5etkxzvm9okdi-0%40mailer.nylas.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to polymer-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/f7ef6540-6973-4be9-94d5-201b384298d4%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/f7ef6540-6973-4be9-94d5-201b384298d4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- AJ Ortega | Software Engineer | a...@google.com | 626-872-5064 Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to polymer-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAKf8-xgtnm%3DU2ftTg5t04Q_vbZmN0Z36mSJb7f7hCZZgBz3SWQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
