I'm surprised at the confusion re: ricks point, it seems to center around the word "optimized"...
I believe the point is that typescript enforces optimizable code writing practices upon the developer. Passing in a string to a function that expects a string and only works with it as a string avoids implicit type coercian. If there is no type coercian, not only have we saved the interpreter an additional step (or steps), but it allows for runtime optimizations (eg in the underlying C or even underlying assembly code) to be made that would not be possible if implicit type coercian was neccessary. I wont be using Typescript at this time - but its existence and this discussion has made me think more about the way I use types. A really awesome tool would be one that requires no extra verbage, but works in the same "intellisense" way - saying things like "Are you sure you mean this?" .... like a JSHint in the editor... wait I think this already exists. Anyways, JSHint type guessing capabilities would rock. A final point, I don't think TypeScript should be classed as a language, strictly speaking - its more of a... *waves hands* .. precompilation syntax overlay. That's possibly why there has been some confusion... calling it a language makes you think it works like at has the same general purpose as Javascript or Python or whatever, when it doesn't. It's simply the complimentary linguistic interface to the whole intellisense idea. Its a tool, not even a tool, *part* of a tool... so I wouldn't call it a language, -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
