Talk:TypeScript
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uploaded an image of its logo edit
Since it is an open source programming language, I uploaded its logo to Wikimedia Commons, that is, File:TypeScript Logo.png.
DYK nomination edit
This article's nomination for WP:DYK is being reviewed at Template:Did you know nominations/TypeScript -Abhishikt (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed section edit
I've removed the follow section becuase I don't think it really fits in this article. I'm leaving it here until a better location is found. Stewart Adcock (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
=== Other languages that compile to JavaScript === * [[CoffeeScript]] * [[Dart (programming language)|Dart]], another optionally typed programming language * [[Haxe]] * [[ClojureScript]] * [[Google Web Toolkit]] (Java) * For more: [https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS list of languages that compile to JS]
Type erasure is a feature? edit
Type erasure is generally not considered a "feature". While it might be the right trade-off for a programming language, it is normally considered a weakness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.193.6 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Definitely agree with this. Referring to Type Erasure as a feature is a stretch to say the least.
It is fundamentally necessary for ECMAScript compatibility but that doesn't make it desirable. Reification is actually one of the most requested features, and while it is broadly contrary to the language's goals, it is also arguably present in a minimal extent by way of decorator metadata emit (this doesn't emit types it emits values that have the same name as types). Aluan Haddad (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Type erasure might not be considered a feature in some languages, but it definitely is in some others. In some programming languages like OCaml, type erasure is a strength because it means that your type information doesn't add any overhead to the runtime. An example of that is phantom types: https://iohk.io/en/research/library/papers/ghosts-of-departed-proofsfunctional-pearls/. --Cool-and-original-username (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
ECMAScript article? edit
The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript#ECMAScript_Harmony_.286th_Edition.29 goes nowhere specific to TypeScript.
84.59.106.7 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles edit
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
Collaboration... edit
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
Where to list JavaScript articles edit
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
User scripts edit
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention edit
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
Rating JavaScript articles edit
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove "class-based object-oriented programming" from intro edit
The introduction states that TypeScript adds "class-based object-oriented programming". This is a common misconception as TypeScript's support for classes is, with the exception of a few features such as property shorthand, simply a function of its general downlevel transpilation of ECMAScript 2015 features.
This misconception is extremely prevalent among new users of the language and contributes to a conflation of types and classes.
It would be beneficial to revise this statement. Aluan Haddad (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Since 1.6, Microsoft has promoted TypeScript's interoperability with Facebook's React and React Native frameworks, and JSX. Should we include this in the article? 32.97.110.61 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable given the dedicated syntactic support, auxiliary ".tsx" file type, and the number of react specific compiler options.
However, I would not call it a collaboration. It's all been done on the TypeScript side. With the React team expressing at best minimal interest and given that Facebook has developed their own typed dialect of ECMAScript which has more react specific constructs embedded in it yet is less popular in the react space. Aluan Haddad (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Scripting as paradigm for TypeScript edit
I noted that TS is annotated with scripted (under the paradigm section), but that JavaScript is not. To me JS always seemed somewhat more 'scripty' than TS, so I found this curious, and didn't find any discussion of this aspect in the article. I think it would be good if a (small) part of the article could address it (I however don't feel competent enough to write this part). This is partly true for the other paradigms named in the box, where a (short) discussion why/in what sense TS falls within this paradigm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohanning (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Newest version in infobox edit
The infobox lists the latest stable version as 1.1.0.1 / 7 October 2014; 8 years ago, but it seems like the latest version is 4.8.2. This is already on the linked Wikidata, but it's not displaying in the infobox. Would someone be able to fix this? – numbermaniac 05:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)