| 02:07 | <Sacha Greif> | as I'm going through the State of JS data, I see people mention Type Annotations, Type as Comments, and then also just "native types" |
| 02:08 | <Sacha Greif> | I want to add links to help people understand the nuances between all these, but I wanted to double-check here first |
| 02:08 | <Sacha Greif> |
|
| 02:09 | <Sacha Greif> | now what's confusing to me is that "Type as Comments" seems to refer to the same proposal; even though I would've assumed based on the name something more like JSDoc with actual comments |
| 02:10 | <Sacha Greif> | so are there competing proposals? or just that one? |
| 02:23 | <Rob Palmer> | Types as Comments was renamed to Type Annotations. They mean the same thing. Both mean static types that do not affect the runtime execution. "Runtime types" or "native types" are not found in any proposal. Anyone requesting that probably wants runtime type checking which is not something being considered. |
| 02:25 | <Rob Palmer> | Typescript already supports a form of type-checking type annotations authored in JSDoc format inside JS comments. Some people may also wish for an evolution of that to use Terser syntax within JS comments. That is purely a TS consideration/feature. JS does not need to change - it already supports comments. |
| 02:38 | <Sacha Greif> | thanks, that makes sense! |
| 04:28 | <sirisian> | Sacha Greif: https://github.com/Devographics/surveys/issues/62#issuecomment-1297815074 You had the same issue before. |
| 04:29 | <sirisian> | Also there's an ECMAScript FAQ somewhere that covers this. Forgot where it is. |
| 06:13 | <Sacha Greif> | oh you're right! although in the message above I was referring to the terms other people used in freeform answers, not the terms I use in the survey itself |
| 06:14 | <Sacha Greif> | this is what the wording in the survey itself looks like |
| 06:14 | <Sacha Greif> | now I see that the following question is confusing though |
| 06:15 | <Sacha Greif> | I should not have mentioned "comments" |
| 06:18 | <Sacha Greif> | I made a note to review this for next time: https://github.com/Devographics/surveys/issues/255#issuecomment-2527034916 |
| 06:23 | <Sacha Greif> | anyway sorry about the poor wording, maybe I can add a note in the results about not misinterpreting the data |
| 06:46 | <eemeli> | Unless you look at the Extractors proposal and squint a bit. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-extractors/issues/20 |
| 11:52 | <Rob Palmer> | Given the champion's pushback on the idealness of using that feature for that use-case in that thread, I think for Sasha's purpose (mass comms to the wider ecosystem) it should not be highlighted. (However I appreciate that whenever we provide hooks to run arbitrary code, all sorts of use-cases are possible) |