Optional Strong Typing

Domenic Denicola domenic at domenicdenicola.com
Fri Aug 23 10:41:27 PDT 2013

In general ECMAScript lacks lots of features. You may well ask why it doesn't have any other pet feature, and you can often point to compile-to-JS languages that add those. This doesn't imply that the feature should be added to the language.

Here, let me try:


I'm aware of LispyScript, as well as all of these: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS.

But those languages appear to have been created precisely because ECMAScript lacks features like lots of parentheses or macros. How many of those languages offer lots of parentheses? I count quite a few... Doesn't that say something?


The existence of a feature in other languages does not imply it should be added to ECMAScript. You'll have to justify better than that why you think strong typing would be valuable to a language that has historically rejected it. (I'll wait for one of the old timers to chime in about the ES4 days here.)

More information about the es-discuss mailing list