Andrew read my mind. When it comes to TypeScript and transpiling I have to force myself to express an objective opinion as I really don't like them ( I know I know, it's me against the world :-) ). But I was about to suggest to use ES6 instead, which is now well supported by browsers and brings most of the syntax of TypeScript.
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:58 PM Andrew Kondratev <[email protected]> wrote: > Sven, It's hard to disagree, with what you say. The main goal I'm trying to > achieve is to split these classes/objects into separate source files to > make them readable, navigable and intelligibl. We can consider simply > splitting it into separate files and concating them with some build tool or > maybe updating them to ES6 or next and transpilling to ES3. Another option > to consider is a Flow typechecker. > > What I really want is to open a door for further development and > improvement non necessarily serious modification right now straight away. > > P.S. I proposed TS just because I personally like it. > > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 22:31, Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > as one of the few maintainers of that code I'm not in favor of this: > > IMHO it is not worth to introduce a new language and to complicate the > > build process just to generate ~2500 lines of JS code. Code which is > > closely tied to the browser, pretty stable, thoroughly tested and *almost > > never seen much less touched by anyone else than the committers*. > > I really appreciate the work you have put into this, but I don't see any > > advantage. I'd rather reduce and improve the current code in JavaScript. > > > > I don't want to be a spoilsport, but on an official vote to switch to > > TypeScript I will give a -0 at best. > > > > Regards > > Sven > > > > > > -- > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. > -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
