Hacker News Reader

Comment by l30n4da5 | Hacker News Reader

Im curious what a proposal like this means for other compile-to-js languages. I'm assuming it really won't make any difference to those, but languages like ReScript, PureScript, or Elm, for example, all are statically typed and compile to js in the end.

View on HN

CoffeeScript, for one, is already at least talking about emitting TS [1]. These kinds of changes are vigorously debated though, e.g. [2]. Once ECMA type comments get to stage 4, CS would probably also adapt the new syntax. Other compile-to-js languages that already ship with their own type system like Dart will probably be indifferent to the debated proposal.

[1] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/issues/5307 [2] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/issues/5394

> What about compatibility with ReasonML, PureScript, and other statically typed languages that compile to JavaScript?

> While these languages compile to JavaScript, and have static typing, they are not supersets of JavaScript, and thus are not relevant to this proposal.

https://github.com/giltayar/proposal-types-as-comments/#what...

I don’t think it means anything, since the JS parser will just ignore the type annotations.

that was my thought, as well.

curious to see, though, if popularity of other statically-typed compile-to-js languages will suffer if TypeScript syntax is adopted into the js spec (presumably causing TypeScript to gobble up more market-share).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com