zlacker

>>pavela+(OP)
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.

>>siwata+Yc
I am going to sound crazy, but, if Microsoft would free up TypeScript and every browser added native TypeScript features to JavaScript… and then we all just started calling it TypeScript. Maybe? Then you would see native ts files. Oracle will never give up JS. The funny thing is the number of people who confuse Java and JS.

>>gianca+cD
An important feature of TypeScript is identifying problems in your code before the user runs it, i.e. before a browser even comes into play.

>>Vinnl+5E
So? If supported natively by the browser the browser could compile it on download.

You'll still get all the strong typing without have to wait for it to run.

For example an error in a little used branch would cause an error before the branch even runs.

>>lelant+tG
So then the user gets a type error in their face instead of the page loading? That doesn't really sound better than the developer getting that error while writing the code, which is what TypeScript currently does.

>>Vinnl+mY
Not to mention the penalty of the browser having to re-execute the type checking every time the files aren't loaded from cache.