he/him 
In Rome, when using TS/Flow/JSX syntax in a file that doesn't support it, we will infer the syntax you might have meant, and provide hints on how to enable itpic.twitter.com/nMRgAGumoV
Show this thread
-
Any chance we could avoid the jsx extension. I kinda hate it (tsx too).
Maybe. Syntax is derived from the file extension, or comments. Adding another place to describe it, like in config, just increases the surface area even more. I'm not a fan of non-standard syntax being in .js. The @flow annotation is a hack.
-
-
I also try to avoid the .jsx extension. Maybe parse .js files as jsx if React.createElement is in scope?(or if it has the jsx pragma comment)
-
jsx pragma is reasonable but it's useless for React developers who use the default. I'd rather have the smallest amount of possible ways syntax can be expressed for a file. Checking if a variable is in scope is a non-starter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your logic is undeniable, but I still don't like the extension jsx
I'll probably get over it -
I honestly don't get why. It's NOT JavaScript! It's almost like renaming TypeScript files .js. If I get .js sent, I expect JavaScript and to be able to run it without transpiling.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.