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>
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss