Optional Strong Typing

J B port25 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 23 10:56:06 PDT 2013

And just to be clear, I'm not asking for run-time type checking or
coercion; I'm simply asking that the interpreter not to thrown an error
when it encounters something like this: var foo:String;

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM, J B <port25 at gmail.com> wrote:

> For one, I wouldn't describe strong typing as a "pet feature". Two, no, as
> far as I know, most of those languages in that list don't offer macros or
> lots of parentheses; and, if they did, then, yeah, maybe it does say
> something.
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>> 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.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130823/4729e81f/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list