IDE support?

[Brendan Eich]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:03 AM, John J Barton wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM,  <es-discuss-request at mozilla.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some of the discussion on this thread amounts to "IDEs work great for
>>> typed languages so let's make JS typed".  What if we started with
>>> "What would be great for JavaScript developers"? Then we would not
>>> waste a lot of time talking about static analysis.  It's the wrong
>>> tool.
>> 
>> Why are you assuming that conclusion already? Why not answer your own question "What would be great for JavaScript developers?" and if the answer includes type inference, great?
> 
> I'm assuming that conclusion already because the current tools for JS
> development are so incredibly lame that wasting time on static
> analysis -- which we know does not work without changing the language

Ok, your assumed conclusion rests on a prior assumption: 

> static analysis ... we know does not work without changing the language

Evidence?

It seems to me you have not studied either http://doctorjs.org, which is nodejs based, the code is on github (it's all JS, essentially a fork of narcissus via Patrick Walton's jsctags):

https://github.com/mozilla/doctorjs

or Brian Hackett's work in SpiderMonkey (Patrick Walton made a JS version of it, should be easier to study:

https://github.com/pcwalton/doctorjsmm

Really, asserting an assumption to back up an assumed conclusion?

/be