Home > Uncategorized > TypeScript reactions

TypeScript reactions


Great implementation of modules. I use commonjs on the browser side (yes, the non-asynchronous module pattern), so the default suits me fine.

Love the => syntax of course, and the fact that it fixes the meaning of this within lambdas. No need to manually copy into a that variable.

Type system

… appears to be better than that of C#/CLR. Structural typing is clearly the right way to do it. It makes much more sense than nominal typing. The dumbest example of that in C# is the strange fact that two identically-signatured delegate types are not assignment compatible. Well, in TS, types are compared by their structures, not their names, so that problem goes away. And the same for classes and interfaces. If a class could implement an interface, then it already does. When they add generics, it’s going to be excellent.

I wonder if they’ve given any thought to the problem of evolution of interfaces. Default implementations of methods (this could be implemented by having the compiler insert some checking/substitution code at the call site).

Async, await, async, await, async, await…

The really big missing ingredient is continuations. They’ve just added this to C#. Clearly it is just as important for browser-based apps, if not more important. And consider the fact that server-side JS at the moment is roughly synonymous with node, which is crying out for continuations in the language. From a Twitter conversation with Joe Palmer, it’s clear that the TS team currently places a big emphasis on the clean appearance of the JS output. But I think they’re going to have to twist the arms of the IE teams and get source map support working, and then they can butcher the JS as much as they like without hurting the debugging experience.

The Dreaded C++ Comparison

Theses days a C++ comparison from me is normally an insult (despite speaking ASFAC++B) but in this case, definitely not. C++ beat a lot of other languages simply by inheriting C. And JS is the C of the web, so TS has a good chance of being the C++ of the web, in the sense of becoming equally popular as its parent language, while probably not actually displacing it everywhere.

And at its best, C++ was a collection of extensions to C, a pretty ugly platform to start building on. To do that tastefully was a challenge, and (despite what people say in jest) C++ succeeded in lots of ways. Playing with TS, I see a similarly tastefully chosen set of extensions.

When you consider C++0x concepts, which were going to be (and may yet one day be) structural type definitions layered over the existing duck-typing of C++ templates, the comparison becomes even stronger. TS’s type system has a lot in common with C++0x concepts.

The Competition

A common criticism so far seems to be “Why not use (my favourite language X) as a starting point?” The answer, surely, is that it may be your favourite language but it’s nowhere compared to JS, which is now so widely deployed and used that it makes most other languages look like hobby projects! This criticism is correlated strongly with the idea that JS is a toy language, disgusting, revolting, etc., i.e. irrational emotional garbage. JS has a lot of stupid things in it, yes, we all know about {} + {} and [] + [] and {} + [] and so on, but I’ve now churned out a zillion lines of JS without ever hitting such issues. No language is perfect, but is JS useful? Yes.

In fact, the main competition faced by TS is therefore JS. This is why I think TS needs to do some heavy lifting (such as continuation support) besides a mere layer of sugar and type checking, in order to become a compelling advantage over JS itself.

And then there is CoffeeScript. Syntax just isn’t that important for most people. Semantics are much more important. It’s no good that your code looks really short and pretty if it takes you just as long to figure out what it needs to say. By the addition of static typing, TS holds out the hope of genuinely improving productivity. (With continuations it could asynchronous event-driven programming a lot easier too.)

Oh and there’s Dart. I can’t even begin to understand what Google is thinking. It’s not compatible with, nor discernibly superior in any way, to anything that already exists. It’s just their version of the same old stuff.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: