There's a misunderstanding about stagnating proposals in TC39, that it's because TC39 dislikes a proposal. It's often not the proposal itself but the work of the champion. E.g. not enough research, poor presentation, lack of arguments or it's a topic which requires extra effort.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @sebmarkbage
Can you provide any inside into TC39’s stance on types in JS? With the popularity TS and Flow are getting, is the issue here the same as you just mentioned? The champion? Or a lack of interest to bring types to JS
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattapperson
The stance is basically to let the space play itself out, outside of standards. That space is huge and very much still in motion. It's not that types can never be added. However, there are arguments for some smaller type hints which could possibly be made by a strong champion.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @sebmarkbage @mattapperson
In light of TS and Flow both existing and being fairly divergent, I think it's really healthy to let things play out in userspace. I also think it's notable that neither TS nor Flow started out with soundness on any kind of near term roadmap.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Standardizing an unsound type system is pretty unlikely, because then you have to make a lot of aesthetic choices about which unsoundness you're willing to accept. As a TS user, I think unsound types add a lot of value, but poor fit for standards in that form.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
What about reserving and allowing some type-related syntax (with zero semantics?)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's pretty hard to even do that. I'd be hard pressed to define a grammar that covered TS, Flow and future extensions they were considering. And I don't think we'd want to ban the use of keywords like interface, implements, private etc forever either.
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.