Hacker News Reader

Comment by 38 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Go's type system is inferior to Typescript's in every possible way. About the only saving grace it has is that it didn't start out in a non-typesafe ecosystem, but most of those issues have been alleviated in Typescript for years.

At this point, folks are seeing how far they can push the Typescript type system because it's capable of expressing so, so much more with its types than is seen typically(including in most other languages).

Typescript typing isn't even required, so your argument just fell apart.

You’ll convert, it’s only a matter of time.

Are you talking into a mirror?

> If JavaScript was a failure

By almost any reasonable measure it is one of the strongest candidates for “biggest success ever as a programming language”. Sure, you can argue that the reasons for that aren’t mainly language design related, but it is absolutely not anything like a failure.

It only succeeded because it literally couldn’t fail. It had plenty of competitors and all of them had one critical flaw: not being built in to the browser.

Being multi-paradigm with a Java like syntax doesn’t hurt.

Pretty easy to succeed when it's the only language a browser supports.

Java and ActionScript -- though technically not supported out of the box -- had practically full support.

It wasn't the only language browsers (vbscript was allowed client side in early ie) supported and also isn't anymore with wasm

> and also isn't anymore with wasm

I don't buy this, considering that wasm still doesn't actually have access to the Web APIs that JavaScript has access to (and relies on JS to even be loaded in the first place).

In my opinion, if that's what counts as being a supported language, then JS was never the only supported language to begin with since you could always compile other languages to run on the web through JavaScript (for example Emscripten with the asm.js target predates WebAssembly). The only thing that wasm currently offers over the previous status quo is that it's faster (for some workloads).

“JavaScript’s success is unfair”, sure, whatever.

But that’s not the same as “JavaScript is a failure”.

The point is that success sure tastes bitter.

Yes, as expected of a successful language, JavaScript clearly falls into the first category of Stroustroup’s observation: “There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.”

But the Go type system is pathetic in comparison to Typescript.

Typescript typing isn't even required, so your argument just fell apart.

I’ve used both and Typescript is clearly better. The optionally has had zero negative impact on my projects. So basically, I simply disagree.

hope you can remember to use the typing EVERY single time. good luck!

I use an IDE so it’s incredibly easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com