Followup: modularity, WebExtensions, and going faster

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 12/10/2016 14:01, David Teller wrote:
> 2/ if we have poor modules, static checking is mostly going to confirm
> that we have poor modules, but if we have better modules, static
> checking is going to be more useful.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The annotations are, I assume, 
for globals as well as function/method signatures. Why would it matter 
how we organize modules?
(Which isn't to say that we shouldn't pay attention to modular code, but 
it doesn't seem like it'll impact static type checking.)

> I agree that static type-checking is mostly orthogonal with the choice
> of a way of modularizing the code (regardless of whether this "way" is a
> specific technology, a set of review guidelines or anything inbetween).
> On the other hand, I strongly believe that supporting strong typing
> (note that I didn't write "static typing") at API boundaries is important.
Right now there are no API boundaries at all in the strict sense of the 
word, or alternatively, any JS global or function/method is an API boundary.

I'm also not sure why, even for "properly structured modules" of 
whatever kind, we wouldn't care about types used internally, and only 
about the API boundaries...

~ Gijs