Proposal: Optional Static Typing (Part 3)

Brian Barnes ggadwa at charter.net
Tue Jan 16 14:49:25 UTC 2018


My 2 cents from a pure developer (not js engine implementer.)  I've been 
developing for decades, started with assembly, to C, to C++ and Java, 
and lately have been fascinated with javascript, especially as it's run 
anywhere.

I'm developing both a 3D shooter where every bit of content (maps, 
models, bitmaps, sounds) are randomly generated from scratch, and just 
started working on a 2D game engine with a game.  Doing this because I 
enjoy doing it (all open source if anybody cares.)

I do very rapid development.  I code what I need, and when my need 
changes, I rework all the code.  Some of these engines have gone through 
multiple iterations.  All class based, BTW.

Nothing has caused me more trouble than types.  Massive changes up and 
down a chain of code almost always create very hard to track errors. 
Adding things to signatures can be a nightmare because you have to 
retrack all that through the code and nothing tells you if you've messed 
up one somewhere.  It wastes more time than I can count.

 From my personal experience, which might not be universal -- but this 
is a real world example, types would be a great help.  If only 
pre-compile hints, that's still a step forward.  If something the engine 
can use, that's even better.

One other benefit -- if I decide to shift my code back to C++ and do web 
assembly (waiting for the tools to mature and become more turn-key) this 
makes it much easier to translate code, either way.

[>] Brian

On 1/16/2018 9:01 AM, Pier Bover wrote:
>  >  javascript-fatigue is partly the realization from naive newcomers 
> that you almost always end up with spaghetti-code after integration, no 
> matter how hard you fight it
> 
> And don't you think the lack of OST is in part fueling this situation?


More information about the es-discuss mailing list