Optional Strong Typing

Jeremy Martin jmar777 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 23 11:06:58 PDT 2013


I mean it's a parse error that will throw prior to attempting to execute
it.  For example, consider:

    (function() { var foo:String; })

This will throw an error, despite the fact that the function hasn't been
invoked.  I replied in haste, though... your point is obviously valid for
other scenarios.  Nonetheless, as a non-authoritative response, you're
going to need an argument far more compelling than I can think of to see
static typing seriously considered.


On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, J B <port25 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you referring to browsers like Chrome that compile the JS first? Then,
> yeah, I mean it shouldn't throw an error at compile time.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jeremy Martin <jmar777 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > var foo:String;
>>
>> That's already a compile-time error (as opposed to runtime.... not sure
>> if that's what you meant by the interpreter throwing an error).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, J B <port25 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Martin
>> 661.312.3853
>> http://devsmash.com
>> @jmar777
>>
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130823/019a5ef3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list