search

sirisian / ecmascript-types

ECMAScript Optional Static Typing Proposal http://sirisian.github.io/ecmascript-types/
453 stars 4 forks source link

difference with type annotation #73

Closed lquanx closed 1 year ago

lquanx commented 2 years ago

There is proposal for type annotation. I think the final goal is the same. Is it realistic to focus on one proposal together ? so that we can push the proposal to the next stage faster

sirisian commented 2 years ago

Are you asking how runtime types are different than types as comments? The Type Annotation proposal is a "types as comments" proposal. The two proposals are incompatible and can't work together as this proposal creates native types and their various language features.

Perhaps I should write a section about this because someone else asked me about this a while ago. I thought the type annotations proposal explained this well on their end in the first paragraph though. Perhaps they need to expand the limitations of their proposal more if this isn't clear.

Many of the features like function overloading (with implementation), memory layouts, value types, simple decorator syntax, and such aren't possible with types as comments.

On a side-note I think this misunderstanding on what Type Annotations are is going to leave a lot of developers disappointed if it is pushed through. It locks in a ton of syntax that can't be used for anything else in the future to effectively do nothing.

sirisian commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types/blob/master/README.md#nativeruntime-typing-vs-type-annotations-aka-types-as-comments