Comments on: Microsoft attacks JavaScript scaling with TypeScript

By: Edgar

Edgar — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:06:32 +0000

If you look at the TypeScript language, I think you’ll see that it is very close to ActionScript 3. It uses ActionScript 3 type syntax to declare the types for variables, classes and even inheritance. However in some ways TypeScript is ahead of ActionScript 3. For example TypeScript sports better type checking when assigning functions to variables, and it supports method overloading. At any rate based on what I’ve seen from TypeScript, if you’re an ActionScript 3 developer you’ll probably feel right at home with TypeScript.

By: John Smithenson

John Smithenson — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:15:20 +0000

Boo to static types? Obviously most script kiddies have never worked on really large applications.
Any help you can have to find possible problems are such a bonus…

By: rdane1010

rdane1010 — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:43:05 +0000

Is microsoft trying to make another .Net with Typescript? That’s just what we need, companies buying bloated Microsoft tools to do JavaScript development https://plus.google.com/u/0/115228087852945642621/posts/XACvqPYHFRw

By: JW

JW — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:53:13 +0000

Why would you want to use Sharpkit when it’s expensive ($199), and not open source?

Sharpkit is not obsolete.

Do you work for them or something?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:30:54 +0000

Why not use Actionscript 3. It’s just needs to divorce the Flash Player, and honestly, it dosen’t need it.

By: giladkhen

giladkhen — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:50:18 +0000

Nice try MS. I still rather use good old C# and compile it JS using http://sharpkit.net/

By: giladkhen

giladkhen — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:47:54 +0000

Nice try MS. I still rather work in good old C# and compile it to JS with http://sharpkit.net/

By: Edwin Yip

Edwin Yip — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:05:50 +0000

Agreed, static typing has that advantage. Remember those complains about the code completion features for dynamic typed languages are weak?

Now things will be changed. I’m developing a text editor for lively editing and testing html/css/js, the next major will be the implementation of code completion (intelleSense), with plain JS I doubt I can go any further than the others, but with TypeScript, things will be better, I guess.

PS, link of my live code editor mentioned above: http://liveditor.com

By: Nixon

Nixon — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:24:41 +0000

It’s optional, so you don’t have to use it when it gets in the way.

In other cases though, having defined types, especially across different areas of a code base, really helps avoid debugging headaches. The “make change, run to see if it works, see it doesn’t, make more corrections, repeat” loop can only scale so far before you realize the code is just unmaintainable. With static types the compiler can at least help identify all your problem areas so you don’t have to check yourself at runtime.

By: Ermias

Ermias — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:30:12 +0000

boo to static typing