Proposal: Optional Static Typing (Part 3)

Pranay Prakash pranay.gp at gmail.com
Thu Jan 11 08:09:55 UTC 2018


I'm still yet to read the entire proposal, but with a quick skim, it seems
to me like this is essentially what Typescript or Flow offers you: i.e. an
opt-in type system?

I'm wondering if you have any good reasons to want there to be a
standardised static type annotation syntax within ECMAScript instead of a
"Bring Your Own Type Checker" system.
If you do have some thoughts on this, you might also want to include that
as a preface on your Github's README.You have a "Rationale" bit that seems
to ignore the existence of these existing systems.

Waiting to hear more thoughts on this :)

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 at 11:56 Brandon Andrews <warcraftthreeft at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> It's been a year and a half since my last post and I've made a number of
> small changes and corrections over 2.5 years. The proposal is still on my
> github at:
>
>
> https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types
>
> I've talked to a lot of people about it, but I haven't gotten much
> criticism or suggested improvements. I'm a bit in over my head in trying to
> flesh out all the details or all the nuanced syntax changes that a
> championed proposal would be expected to do. That said I've been making
> more changes lately to try to find edge cases and potential problems.
>
>
> I've been jotting down issues here:
> https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types/issues I closed a number of
> them recently as I made changes.
>
> If anyone has any comments on what I should expand, look into more, or
> change I'm open to discussing them here or on github.
>
> One issue in particular is this:
> https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types/issues/15 It covers whether
> I should introduce a new assignment operator to my proposal. Maybe there's
> another way to look at it or a different solution. I need fresh eyes on the
> whole proposal really to get a list of new issues to tackle this year.
>
> I'm also not against having one or multiple people champion it and working
> on it without me. (I haven't been able to dedicate time to read the
> ECMAScript spec and really understanding the grammar fully so having
> someone qualified to take over would help the proposal a lot).
>
>
> Thanks for reading the proposal for anyone that has the time.
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180111/b5df9400/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list