Hacker News Reader

Comment by tekkk | Hacker News Reader

No, it's the right way. TS is the future of the language. Besides JS is not sane enough to be a low level language. WASM is precisely that.

View on HN

Then use TS if you prefer. There are plenty of people who prefer languages like that are type-less, and are plenty proficient in it.

If you want a strongly-typed static language, compile to a wasm target with typescript, or another language... That's what it there for.

Sure there is but I suppose majority are moving towards typed languages. Perhaps it's sad for some, but it's no fun having to guess types or console.log them because it's just not obvious. Good riddance I say.

I'd rather have a proper type-less functional language and it's impossible to create that from JS with its legacy baggage.

Thought experiment If you could go back in time and replace Brendon Eich when he first created JS what would you propose?

Just ask him to make it more consistent and explain that people will one day create really big apps with the language. Not just little interactive widgets. And design the language from the point of view. Simpler and more scalable. Like having the optional types as proposed here.

Would you make the same argument if Chrome decided to flip the script and make TS the default browser language and if you wanted something untyped you had to use a compiler?

I'm not sure how you would go from a static untyped language to a dynamic typed language. Pretty sure only the opposite is possible. You could have type-inference... but this is different from having a weak type system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com