Hacker News Reader

Comment by fxfan | Hacker News Reader

4 of the most popular language creators here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csL8DLXGNlU agree that type systems are useful.

I would suggest definitely not using Vanilla JS. There are excellent type systems over JS, TypeScript, Scala.JS, BuckleScript to name a few each with their pros and cons (I don't know what cons BuckleScript has though, maybe relatively smaller lib-ecosystem)

View on HN

Not that I don't agree with their opinion, but being a language creator mostly like greatly biases you towards over estimating the usefulness of certain features. As such I wouldn't hold language creator's opinions on the value of certain language features over say the opinions of CTOs or VP engineering of large companies, especially as it relates to productivity, maintenance and onboarding.

I use bucklescript/reasonML extensively.

The biggest con is definitely the smaller lib-ecosystem, creating bindings for functions is generally relatively painless but if you're using javascript libraries with large API surfaces that will be a large time sink. Otherwise it's been a joy to use.

Larry Wall is endorsing strong types? I'll have to watch that now. I guess you can use Perl 6 in a way that approximates it, but it's very optional.

Does anyone have a timestamp for Larry Wall talking about types?

I believe the idea is 'gradual typing', where you add types as you firm up an interface.

Lots of the perl6 code I've seen types most stuff at least at interface boundaries.

There are lots of alternatives to vanilla JavaScript. Why stop at types and encapsulation?

http://bikeshed.fm/192

Reply on news.ycombinator.com