Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31438 > unrolled thread

TypeScript

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  TypeScript Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-23 13:42 +0100
    Re: TypeScript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-09-24 10:36 +0200
      Re: TypeScript Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-25 17:25 +0100
        Re: TypeScript "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-12-17 14:05 -0800
          Re: TypeScript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-18 01:04 +0100
            Re: TypeScript Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-18 09:33 +0000
              Re: TypeScript <anonymous@not.real> - 2016-12-18 14:39 +0000
                Re: TypeScript Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-12-18 19:06 +0000
            Re: TypeScript "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-12-18 11:49 -0800

#31438 — TypeScript

Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?

See <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/typescript-
microsofts-javascript-for-big-applications-reaches-version-2-0/>,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript>,
<http://www.typescriptlang.org/>.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, near London.                Mail ?.?.Stockton@physics.org
  Web  <                              > - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31439

Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 23 Sep 2016 
in comp.lang.javascript:

> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>
 
> See <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/typescript-
> microsofts-javascript-for-big-applications-reaches-version-2-0/>,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript>,
> <http://www.typescriptlang.org/>.

and:
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/typescript> 

TypeScript 2.0
<https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/What's-new-in-TypeScript>


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31459

In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BFADE8eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
posted:

>Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
>
><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
>topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>

Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
finds of "type script".

The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ¬@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Merlyn Web Site <                       > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31889

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BFADE8eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
> posted:
> 
> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
> >in comp.lang.javascript:
> >
> >> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
> >
> ><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
> >topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>
> 
> Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
> finds of "type script".
> 
> The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
> compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".

Yes. TypeScript is a strict superset of ECMASCript

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31892

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BFADE8eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
>> posted:

Good grief.  Three lines of attribution.
 
>> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>> >in comp.lang.javascript:

I repeat: It’s attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> >> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
>> >
>> ><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
>> >topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>
>> 
>> Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
>> finds of "type script".

Enclosing the search term in double quotes excludes those hits.
 
>> The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
>> compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".
> 
> Yes. TypeScript is a strict superset of ECMASCript

That is what Microsoft is saying (actually, they now say it is a “typed 
superset of JavaScript”) and Wikipedia is parroting.  It is not necessarily 
true.

Besides, it is not obvious that the correct answer to the question asked 
here is “Yes” even if TypeScript should turn out to be a conforming 
implementation of a *specific* Edition of ECMAScript (likely ECMAScript 
2015).  In fact, it is very likely that it is not a conforming 
implementation of *all* Editions of ECMAScript (“the ECMA-262 standards”).

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31893

In article <2308268.tIAgqjz4sF@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BFADE8eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>>> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
>>> posted:
>
>Good grief.  Three lines of attribution.
> 
>>> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>>> >in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>I repeat: It’s attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

This sort of shit emanating from you is why you get told, so often, to
fuck off.

-- 
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31897

On the the date 2016-12-18
at the time 09:33:26
in the group comp.lang.javascript
the person indentified as Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
posted a message that has message id <181220160933261794%timstreater@greenbee.net>
that contained the following text:
> In article <2308268.tIAgqjz4sF@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>>Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BFADE8eejj99@194.109.6.166>,
>>>> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
>>>> posted:
>>
>>Good grief.  Three lines of attribution.
>> 
>>>> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>>>> >in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>I repeat: It’s attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
> 
> This sort of shit emanating from you is why you get told, so often, to
> fuck off.
> 

Pointy Head is not the hero Usenet deserves, but he is the hero that Usenet
needs right now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31898

In article <Icx5A.517008$zq4.330933@fx41.am4>, <anonymous@not.real>
wrote:

>On the the date 2016-12-18
>at the time 09:33:26
>in the group comp.lang.javascript
>the person indentified as Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>posted a message that has message id
><181220160933261794%timstreater@greenbee.net>
>that contained the following text:

>Pointy Head is not the hero Usenet deserves, but he is the hero that Usenet
>needs right now.

ITYM: "the anti-hero that Usenet *has* right now"

And how many times have I got to tell you: it's attribution *novel*,
not attribution line. And Usenet rules state it has to be at least as
long as War and Peace. Or Lord of the Rings (all 1200 pages of it). Or
the complete short stories of H G Wells.

-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#31899

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> That is what Microsoft is saying (actually, they now say it is a “typed
superset of JavaScript”) and Wikipedia is parroting.  It is not necessarily
true.

If only there was some way to measure this... Ah yes:

<http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/>

Also, this is out of date though (TS 1.8 listed, and TS 2.1 is current).

Ticket: <https://github.com/kangax/compat-table/issues/919>

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Besides, it is not obvious that the correct answer to the question asked 
> here is “Yes” even if TypeScript should turn out to be a conforming 
> implementation of a *specific* Edition of ECMAScript (likely ECMAScript 
> 2015).  In fact, it is very likely that it is not a conforming 
> implementation of *all* Editions of ECMAScript (“the ECMA-262 standards”).

What a foolish comment. Given that newer editions break backwards compatibility on purpose, it would be impossible and undesirable to be conformant to all specs simultaneously.

TypeScript aims to support the latest version of the spec + extensions and then compile to legacy versions, but I suspect you knew this and just simply want to be contrarian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web