Hi,
I am having hard time understanding the counter argument "you need a
transpiler anyway".
Sorry, I agree it's a bad argument, I should have just omitted it.
It was meant to support "If you are only looking for development-time
benefits, you have to install a static toolchain anyway - which might as
well transpile away the annotations".
the real value of strict types, in my view, is at development time,
not at run time.
This is not correct. Check what AssemblyScript managed to do via types,
targeting WASM instead of non-typed JS
I would be curious to know if anybody has a usage for them at run time
Developers might not have such usage, but V8 / Chakra / JSC /
SpiderMonkey might spin up optimizations ahead of time, enabling right
away hot code.
...or at least allow throwing exceptions instead of having to
de-optimise a JITted code, which allows simpler & better optimisation
algorithms.
These are the kinds of arguments I want to hear, reasons for sending
type annotations to the client/runtime. And such a goal puts a very
different focus on what the type system should look like: WASM
interoperability and optimiser efficiency instead of developer productivity.
kind regards,
Bergi
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
