search

nuxt / rfcs

RFCs for changes to Nuxt.js
96 stars 2 forks source link

Typescript support #18

Closed manniL closed 5 years ago

manniL commented 5 years ago

placeholder

related PRs: https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt.js/pull/4406

kevinmarrec commented 5 years ago

I commited a draft on my fork : https://github.com/kevinmarrec/nuxt.js/commit/20683a6de7af4c789ee0cd953f6821ae8b925ae0

kevinmarrec commented 5 years ago

I think my way to setup a typescript Nuxt Config option is the best solution.

Cause with other solutions it will instantly break every project using a TypeScript Module (from npm or local one). Cause there will be both Babel and TsLoader doing things.

With the typescript option, TS users will be able to either have their custom TS module or enable built-in Nuxt support with typecript: true.

EDIT : The migration guide will only about removing the TS module and add typecript: true in nuxt.config.js

If everyone like this solution, we can discuss of the option name, if typescript is not enough relevant.

hartmut-co-uk commented 5 years ago

the interoperability / -> not breaking / allowing custom setup is a good point indeed!

kevinmarrec commented 5 years ago

Nice blog post to read if you have some time to spend to understand why should we use Babel for the Nuxt TypeScript Support : https://iamturns.com/typescript-babel

We'll need to copy this link or explain the caveats of https://babeljs.io/docs/en/next/babel-plugin-transform-typescript in Nuxt documentation.

pi0 commented 5 years ago

please please use discord or nuxt issues for general discussions instead of RFC 🙏 A normal RFC process should be in form of a detailed writedown about changes, more discussions and implemented by one or more PRs referencing to the issue. readme

kevinmarrec commented 5 years ago

@pi0 Sorry !

manniL commented 5 years ago

@pi0 I thought we could use it to clearly state how we want to implement the TS support :thinking:

yankeeinlondon commented 5 years ago

@pi0 I'm a bit confused by your comment, just wanting clarification. In this thread it feels we are discussing an RFC which hasn't been formalized. You seemed to suggest Discord/NUXT issues as more appropriate? I do think think the RFC thread is too bare to be a starting point currently but wouldn't this conversation -- which has both momentum and high value (IMO) -- be better served working off of an RFC? That's certainly how we'd have done it in the Ember community (although the bare bones RFC would not have been allowed). I think whomever started the RFC ... @manniL is that you? ... should take a next step to formalize the RFC too but I'd strongly prefer if this didn't slow down the movement that this thread is already generating.

yankeeinlondon commented 5 years ago

I'm new to NUXT so please take my comments only as exploratory, I expect I'll be bumping into walls a bit to start.