ModuleImport

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Sun Jun 29 09:49:42 PDT 2014


On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Static checking will be limited anyway. If you want to go this way you
>>> should use typescript.
>>>
>>>
>> That's the point that I'm trying to make, shops will choose other
>> languages that provide more static information.  We should be thinking
>> about expanding the user base and ensuring that JS is a viable option years
>> down the road.
>>
>
> JavaScript's enormous user base is the strongest possible evidence that
> static analysis provides no advantage to programming language viability.
> Static analysis may encourage some new users; overall complexity may
> discourage as many.  (I recently started using a typed version of JS;  I am
> not impressed.)
>

> Any survey of the top languages in actual use clear demonstrates that the
> runtime platform and app goals dominate language choice. Even within a
> platform it is clear static checks are way down the list of valued
> features.
>
> Rather than point towards type-checking, I think we should focus on the
> actual checks offered by the module design. It seems that these would come
> with a small cost quite unlike type-checking.
>


Static analysis would be necessary if JavaScript ever wanted to make macros
possible in modules. I don't have exact numbers nor have I done any formal
surveys, but the general response to Sweet.js has been overwhelmingly
positive. It would be a shame to close that door.


Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140629/82103552/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list