Proposal: Optional Static Typing (Part 3)

Brian Barnes ggadwa at
Tue Jan 16 15:23:09 UTC 2018

My bad, sorry, meant "nothing has caused me more trouble than the LACK 
of types."  And I re-read it 3 times before I sent it and missed that!

[>] Brian

On 1/16/2018 10:12 AM, Naveen Chawla wrote:
> This was a nice post but it confused me! You said "Nothing has caused me 
> more trouble than types", then you said " types would be a great help". 
> I'm sure I just misunderstood what you meant.
> Anyway, I think types are a great help in many cases and wouldn't 
> compromise the dynamic-ness of JavaScript whenever required!
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 at 20:19 Brian Barnes <ggadwa at 
> <mailto:ggadwa at>> wrote:
>     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?
>     _______________________________________________
>     es-discuss mailing list
>     es-discuss at <mailto:es-discuss at>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list