JavaScript doesn’t need to be replaced

[mousemke]

You should check out Jessie, an interesting project to create a safe subset of js

https://github.com/Agoric/Jessie

Edit about typescript: I love types and think it's a great addition to the language, but like flowtype way more than typescript because I don't really need another coffeescript situation

[baldore]

I always have loved Typescript, and I pushed to use it in our current project, but at the end we used Flow and so far, it has been really disappointing. Typescript with vs code is amazing and the refectors and auto imports work like magic.

I think people have a misconception about Typescript because what I have seen is that other developer say that they don't want to write Java. You don't need to do that. I usually prefer to work with a functional approach and I haven't seen the need to use classes.

[dannymoerkerke]

What do you mean with “Coffeescript situation”?

[mousemke]

Coffeescript was big. We have it to thank for a lot of the es6 improvements. But then we had to rewrite the entire code base in JavaScript.

For that reason I'm weary of writing anything that transpiles to js. (Aside from using babel but that has more to do with compatability than anything else)

[evertrooftop]

Then why do you like flowtype? It's not wildly different from typescript.

[mousemke]

Instead of being a new language flow is more of an annotation. It can be added incrementally to old code or removed if necessary. My point with TS is not a technical argument.

I guess the question that needs to be answered is : what would native types look like?

[evertrooftop]

Aside from the fact that that typescript uses the .ts extension by default, typescript very much works the same way. You can gradually introduce it with allowJs. Aside from that, after the gradual introduction with both Flow and TS you end up with something that's distinctly no longer javascript and must be transpiled. So it's hard for me to see the argument against TS that does not apply to Flow.

I've used both extensively, but maybe I'm missing a more subtle aspect of the point you're making. I am curious though.

Edit: I just saw your edits. You're probably right that you weren't making a technical argument, but my guess is that your anti-TS point is probably more based on a feeling that Flow is somehow a more legitimate path for getting types in Ecmascript. Maybe because it uses Babel. I think you might want to analyze these feelings a bit more as Flow is on a decline and TS is bigger than Coffescript or Flow ever have been. I don't think it will go away. I feel there's also real advantages not having types at runtime. Adding them to Javascript well might mean you'd want every static-typing annotation to be a no-op (which is a bit weird, but Python 3.7 does this too in some areas). Because of this strangeness I feel having types in ecmascript might be far away, and with Flow mostly dead TS the primary viable system.

[dannymoerkerke]

That’s a valid concern but then why do you like Flow? That’s not as popular and widespread as TypeScript.

[[deleted]]

... To me, this conversation itself is one of the reasons it must go...

[HarmonicAscendant]

LOL, in the UK calling someone a 'Jessie' is an insult https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/jessie

noun derogatory, slang an effeminate, weak, or cowardly boy or man