Evolving a language standard used as broadly as ECMAScript takes time. You can see TypeScript as exploring future options for ECMAScript.
Guards [1] may still be added to ECMAScript, I don’t know what the current TC39 opinion is on them. Lastly, TypeScript tracks JavaScript very closely, I would not consider it a different language. [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards On Aug 23, 2013, at 19:38 , J B <por...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the defacto response for large scale JS development will always be: Use X? > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Jeremy Martin <jmar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't personally used it, but you may find that TypeScript provides what > you're looking for: http://www.typescriptlang.org/ > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, J B <por...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any particular reason my JS doesn't support (optional) AS3 style > strong typing? All the typing info would be ignored at run-time, but it would > be helpful for compile-time checking, code hinting, and general readability > of code. Tools like the closure compiler could even strip out all the typing > info, and it wouldn't make any difference at run-time. I'm probably beating a > dead horse here, but why? > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > -- > Jeremy Martin > 661.312.3853 > http://devsmash.com > @jmar777 > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
