Readme Feedback - WIP

[romulocintra]

Hi

I would be happy to create pull requests to address some of the comments below, at this point using this to take notes while I review de readme and not create too much noise having an issue per comment.

BTW super excited about this :)

1. Would reinforce the idea that we are not bringing Typescript to the browser and avoid possible misleading messages or interpretations of the readme

https://mobile.twitter.com/seldo/status/1135150260425318400

2. Deno

The Deno runtime (a competitor to Node.js, written by the original creator of Node.js) uses TypeScript as its primary source language. Since Deno works with an up-to-date version of the V8 JavaScript engine, erasing TypeScript types is the only meaningful compilation step for Deno. If they didn't need to erase TypeScript types, the Deno runtime could use .ts files directly.

• Unsure when we say uses TypeScript as its primary source language we mean that is built-in TS ? , cause they migrated to Rust i think
• a competitor to Node.js, written by the original creator of Node.js) maybe is not necessary
• Would likely clarify this paragraph may be using as inspiration their documentation

3. Proposal #19 and #26

Please note that the types do not have to conform to the TypeScript (or any other) type system. It is only when the TypeScript (or other) type checker checks the source code that errors are emitted if the types are incorrect or have bad syntax.

• it's a little ambiguous, types have to conform with something no? or it will depend on the type checker you are using?
• Proposal "The correctness of types or syntax errors is emitted when an external type checker is analysing the source code. Otherwise, at runtime, the JavaScript engine ignores them, treating the types as comments"

[giltayar]

1. In some ways, we are bring TypeScript to the browser, because TypeScript code will be able to run without modifications. And since we are clarifying that we're not doing any typechecking and that TypeScript is just one option among many that will now be available in the browser. Also, we're also explicitly saying (If I remember correctly) that we are not standardizing TS.

I believe the FAQ answer in https://github.com/giltayar/types-as-comments-proposal#how-does-this-proposal-relate-to-typescript pretty much says it all. Do you believe there is anything additional to say besides this.

• Yes, "uses TypeScript as its primary source language" is really bad wording. I meant that it accepts TypeScript without the need for transpilation. Maybe better wording would be "accepts TypeScript as a first class language that it can run, alongside JavaScript".

• a competitor to Node.js. Yes, @benjamingr also pointed out that the wording is unfortunate. Maybe "another JavaScript runtime" instead?

• Deno is not just erasing types. They're actually doing typechecking. But this paragraph says that given this proposal, they could have the option of not doing typechecking and just passing the TS along to the JavaScript runtime. Maybe we could change the wording better to reflect this? Or maybe you have a better alternative.

I would love to see a PR that changes this paragraph. I definitely agree it needs rewording.

[romulocintra]

Hi @giltayar thanks for your feedback.

About :

1. I agree with you, FAQ states perfectly and addresses all my concerns, wondering if we should add a note or disclaimer pointing to FAQ from the initial paragraphs - just a nice to have thing.

2. After a full review will try to come with some rewording. Thanks for your feedback

[romulocintra]

Reviewed and changes where proposed