| 22:43 | <whosy> | ljharb: I took a look at the original material and it was very clear. But reading articles, with lines such as "is a proposal that would allow for the inclusion of types in JavaScript code", it's no wonder people would get the wrong idea. (I wish they'd said 'type-like syntax' or something to that degree) |
| 22:44 | <ljharb> | i certainly wasn't trying to suggest it's the fault of those that have a misunderstanding, just that misunderstandings are rampant |
| 22:45 | <ljharb> | and yes, i agree, the proposal isn't very consistently or clearly articulated, and documentation hasn't been thoroughly updated incorporating feedback from the two plenary discussions we've had |
| 22:45 | <whosy> | I was more affirming your comment on (social/)media causing the misunderstanding. |
| 22:48 | <whosy> | It does look rather interesting as a proposal. Engines will just ignore it. And no doubt someone will find some completely different use for it.. I look forward to that though. |
| 22:49 | <whosy> | Oh, and the original material I read was at https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/ (I do think this one does a good job of explaining) |
| 22:50 | <shu> | engines can't use it |
| 22:55 | <whosy> | Yeah, I guess not with the proposal. I was thinking of Bun when I said that, but it's doing its own thing with TypeScript types. That's just incidental then. Thanks for the correction. |