es-discuss Digest, Vol 131, Issue 16
isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Sun Jan 14 16:48:31 UTC 2018
And to add to that, TypeScript also supports in-package type
definitions, too. (Quite a few libraries elect to do this instead.)
me at isiahmeadows.com
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Mark Volkmann
<r.mark.volkmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is why we have the websites definitelytyped.org and
> https://github.com/flowtype/flow-typed. Sure they don’t have type
> definitions for all libraries, but more are being added all the time and
> developers can provide their own definitions to fill in the gaps. Being able
> to use types, even when some libraries do not have type definitions is still
> far better than not using types at all.
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 9:49 PM, Ranando King <kingmph at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stripping the types does solve the runtime problem, but only at the cost of
> creating another. Suppose a website imported a remote library with types in
> it. There's no way that, with the types stripped at runtime, the remote
> library and the local code could validate that each other were satisfying
> their type requirements. That is a major issue. The simple process of
> modularization reduces the usefulness of types that are stripped at runtime
> to only validating the self-consistency of each individual module. Good unit
> testing can already do that.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss