search

tc39 / proposal-type-annotations

ECMAScript proposal for type syntax that is erased - Stage 1
https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/
4.27k stars 47 forks source link

Status update? #225

Closed VBproDev closed 1 week ago

VBproDev commented 1 month ago

How close is this proposal to bring merged with JS? And please 🙏 make a definitive section on the readme to see this fork's progress. If I state the innumerable issues asking for this, I fear this comment will drag on forever.

ljharb commented 1 month ago

It’s very far, since it’s only stage 1.

VBproDev commented 1 month ago

@ljharb Do you have any idea why it's not progressing even though it's obviously a very beneficial proposal.

spotandjake commented 1 month ago

From what I have been seeing there is a lot of controversy on the feature, quite a few people do not seem to understand the intent, there is a lot of debate on the syntax being too typescript like and a lot of people don't like types without semantic meaning.

ljharb commented 1 month ago

"obviously beneficial" is a subjective determination that is very much not universally held.

VBproDev commented 1 month ago

Can you specify why this fork isn't considered beneficial? Strict typing is the most requested feature. So a majority of javascripters would like to see this implemented (including me)

ljharb commented 1 month ago

I didn't make a statement about my own position on this proposal (which is not in any way a "fork"), I simply pointed out that it is not, in fact, universally considered "obviously good".

People ask for all sorts of things all the time - there is not a very high correlation between what people ask for and what would actually be beneficial for them, unfortunately. This proposal is an attempt to try to persuasively seek out the best possible solution, and in stage 1, while that may have a suggested solution, it doesn't actually have a solution yet. This stage is about finding one.

nektro commented 1 month ago

the "what" of vanilla JS having more support for types is fairly widely supported yes but the "how" and "how much" is very highly contested, and the proposal process is designed to eek out those precise details over time

VBproDev commented 1 month ago

So can there be a proper readme section about updates?

nektro commented 1 month ago

the README has links to committee agenda notes at the top. if there isnt anything sooner than that that's up to the champions who may be refining their design or busy on other things at the moment.

spotandjake commented 1 month ago

Can you specify why this fork isn't considered beneficial? Strict typing is the most requested feature. So a majority of javascripters would like to see this implemented (including me)

This proposal dose not add strict typing though which is part of the contraversey these are just type comments that most runners would ignore and to use a lot of features from a language such as typescript you probably will need a compiler anyways. (I would really love to see this proposal implemented but it is not an uncontroversial change).

shaedrich commented 1 month ago

From what I have been seeing there is a lot of controversy on the feature, quite a few people do not seem to understand the intent, there is a lot of debate on the syntax being too typescript like and a lot of people don't like types without semantic meaning.

the "what" of vanilla JS having more support for types is fairly widely supported yes but the "how" and "how much" is very highly contested, and the proposal process is designed to eek out those precise details over time

@VBproDev In the attempt to make JS more TypeScript-like, people often overlook that JS and TS are not two comparable languages. While transcompiling makes sense for TS and is an integral part of said language, with JS, it's a whole different story. And that's where part of the controversy stems from.

quantuminformation commented 2 weeks ago

The challenge is dealing with type errors at runtime - but considering these should be caught at "IDE time" it shouldn't cause too many live issues.

Having to deal with tsc and tooling around it is pain for beginners and a maintenance burden overall.

JS types a huge WIN IMOP

shaedrich commented 2 weeks ago

Having to deal with tsc and tooling around it is pain for beginners

No offense, but TSC being a PITA for some is a TS problem, not a JS problem. Because tooling is not a JS problem.

JS types a huge WIN IMOP

Or is this meant to advocate for real types instead of annotations that don't do anything at runtime?

armordog commented 1 week ago

No offense, but TSC being a PITA for some is a TS problem, not a JS problem. Because tooling is not a JS problem.

This is a weird take. People only have to deal with TSC because JS does not have types.

By the same logic, JS should remove all features because then it wouldn't have any problems.

ctcpip commented 1 week ago

This discussion has veered off topic from the original request regarding a status update. So I'm going to close this. Please continue discussion in existing issues, such as https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations/issues/205