Optional Static Typing (Part 2)

[Brandon Andrews]

I've been very slowly expanding a proposal that I started 1 year ago. The current proposal and links to the previous discussion is here: 


https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types (If the link gets truncated by esdiscuss.org because of the hyphen view the source to see it).


Since a year ago I've read through the current specification partially analyzing key pieces that would need to be modified, have their wording changed, or that would need to be discussed for static typing to happen. In that effort I've spoken to a lot of developers about certain features, preferences, use cases, and where others want the language to head. I'd rather not see this post devolve into discussions about how TypeScript, CoffeeScript, or WebAssembly exist. I've seen many people try to discuss those as reasons to not evolve ECMAScript, but as has been mentioned before the language is expected to continue to exist and evolve separate from them.


What I would like from the ECMAScript community is anyone that wants to discuss specification issues or expansions to the current proposal. Basically the current pool of people I've been talking to think I've covered the key pieces they wanted to see. If anyone here is interested in the subject and wants to create issues on the github or pull requests to expand sections I'd appreciate it. I'm also looking for anyone that has more intimate knowledge about the grammar. I've been working my way through the grammar, but it's a very daunting and time consuming task for me to create the extra grammar rules or analyze conflicts. Anyone that's done that in the past and would be willing to help it would help the proposal a lot.

Also since I've been asked before, when all the specification sections and grammar are done I'll look for a champion. It's too risky to present a type proposal without first considering everything which is why the proposal needs feedback and work.