Comments - Why TypeScript? - TechHui2024-03-29T08:12:00Zhttp://www.techhui.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=1702911%3ABlogPost%3A113065&xn_auth=noI've been watching Script# wi…tag:www.techhui.com,2012-10-26:1702911:Comment:1132402012-10-26T02:42:14.944ZDaniel Leuckhttp://www.techhui.com/profile/dleuck
<p>I've been watching Script# with interest. I'm hoping Microsoft (specifically Anders Hejlsberg) offers assistance in completing full support of the C# 5 syntax. </p>
<p>I've been watching Script# with interest. I'm hoping Microsoft (specifically Anders Hejlsberg) offers assistance in completing full support of the C# 5 syntax. </p> wat
There is a project calle…tag:www.techhui.com,2012-10-23:1702911:Comment:1130732012-10-23T22:28:17.042ZDouglas Chinghttp://www.techhui.com/profile/DouglasChing
<p>wat</p>
<p></p>
<p>There is a project called Script# that generates JavaScript from C# but it's not officially backed by Microsoft.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>wat</p>
<p></p>
<p>There is a project called Script# that generates JavaScript from C# but it's not officially backed by Microsoft.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> @Scott - LOL! The JS expressi…tag:www.techhui.com,2012-10-23:1702911:Comment:1130712012-10-23T20:54:14.747ZCameron Souzahttp://www.techhui.com/profile/CameronSouza
<p>@Scott - LOL! The JS expression [ ] + [ ] evals to "". Yuck!</p>
<p>@Scott - LOL! The JS expression [ ] + [ ] evals to "". Yuck!</p> But JavaScript is perfect as…tag:www.techhui.com,2012-10-23:1702911:Comment:1131382012-10-23T13:45:16.095ZScott Murphyhttp://www.techhui.com/profile/ScottMurphy
<p>But JavaScript is perfect as is....<a href="https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat" target="_blank">https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat</a></p>
<p>But JavaScript is perfect as is....<a href="https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat" target="_blank">https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat</a></p> Nice writeup! Scott was just…tag:www.techhui.com,2012-10-22:1702911:Comment:1129892012-10-22T22:08:48.756ZDaniel Leuckhttp://www.techhui.com/profile/dleuck
<p>Nice writeup! Scott was just telling me about TypeScript over dinner in Tokyo last week. In looking at the language I see a lot of ideas borrowed from ECMAScript 6. In many ways they are basically compiling ECMAScript 6 to ECMAScript 3 (the version of Javascript that works on all reasonably modern browsers.)</p>
<p>I put TypeScript in the same family as Dart. CoffeeScript is a relatively simple Javascript alternative while TypeScript and Dart are full OO languages designed for programming in…</p>
<p>Nice writeup! Scott was just telling me about TypeScript over dinner in Tokyo last week. In looking at the language I see a lot of ideas borrowed from ECMAScript 6. In many ways they are basically compiling ECMAScript 6 to ECMAScript 3 (the version of Javascript that works on all reasonably modern browsers.)</p>
<p>I put TypeScript in the same family as Dart. CoffeeScript is a relatively simple Javascript alternative while TypeScript and Dart are full OO languages designed for programming in the large. In addition to types they give you better modularity and classic OO constructs such as classes and interfaces.</p>
<p>I'm curious why Microsoft didn't just write a C# -> Javascript compiler similar to what Google did with GWT (Java -> Javascript). I suppose it was important for the language to be a superset of Javascript so programmers could always fall back to something familiar.</p>