Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TypeScript

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr J R Stockton

unread,
Sep 23, 2016, 6:44:39 PM9/23/16
to

Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?

See <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/typescript-
microsofts-javascript-for-big-applications-reaches-version-2-0/>,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript>,
<http://www.typescriptlang.org/>.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail ?.?.Stoc...@physics.org
Web < > - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

Evertjan.

unread,
Sep 24, 2016, 4:36:54 AM9/24/16
to
Dr J R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 23 Sep 2016
in comp.lang.javascript:

> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>

> See <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/typescript-
> microsofts-javascript-for-big-applications-reaches-version-2-0/>,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript>,
> <http://www.typescriptlang.org/>.

and:
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/typescript>

TypeScript 2.0
<https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/What's-new-in-TypeScript>


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Dr J R Stockton

unread,
Sep 25, 2016, 5:58:47 PM9/25/16
to
In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BF...@194.109.6.166>,
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net>
posted:

>Dr J R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
>
><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
>topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>

Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
finds of "type script".

The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. 拯merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site < > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.


Michael Haufe (TNO)

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 5:05:52 PM12/17/16
to
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BF...@194.109.6.166>,
> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
> posted:
>
> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
> >in comp.lang.javascript:
> >
> >> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
> >
> ><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
> >topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>
>
> Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
> finds of "type script".
>
> The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
> compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".

Yes. TypeScript is a strict superset of ECMASCript

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 7:04:57 PM12/17/16
to
Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BF...@194.109.6.166>,
>> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
>> posted:

Good grief. Three lines of attribution.

>> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>> >in comp.lang.javascript:

I repeat: It’s attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> >> Has there been anything about TypeScript in this newsgroup?
>> >
>> ><https://groups.google.com/forum/#!
>> >topicsearchin/comp.lang.javascript/typescript>
>>
>> Most of those are unrealistically old : I think many of the hits are
>> finds of "type script".

Enclosing the search term in double quotes excludes those hits.

>> The obvious question is "Is the TypeScript system actually everywhere
>> compliant with the ECMA-262 standards?".
>
> Yes. TypeScript is a strict superset of ECMASCript

That is what Microsoft is saying (actually, they now say it is a “typed
superset of JavaScript”) and Wikipedia is parroting. It is not necessarily
true.

Besides, it is not obvious that the correct answer to the question asked
here is “Yes” even if TypeScript should turn out to be a conforming
implementation of a *specific* Edition of ECMAScript (likely ECMAScript
2015). In fact, it is very likely that it is not a conforming
implementation of *all* Editions of ECMAScript (“the ECMA-262 standards”).

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

anon...@not.real

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 9:39:46 AM12/18/16
to
On the the date 2016-12-18
at the time 09:33:26
in the group comp.lang.javascript
the person indentified as Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
posted a message that has message id <181220160933261794%timst...@greenbee.net>
that contained the following text:
> In article <2308268.t...@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-5, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.javascript message <XnsA68D6BF...@194.109.6.166>,
>>>> Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:36:53, Evertjan.
>>>> posted:
>>
>>Good grief. Three lines of attribution.
>>
>>>> >Dr J R Stockton wrote on 23 Sep 2016
>>>> >in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>I repeat: It’s attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
>
> This sort of shit emanating from you is why you get told, so often, to
> fuck off.
>

Pointy Head is not the hero Usenet deserves, but he is the hero that Usenet
needs right now.

Michael Haufe (TNO)

unread,
Dec 18, 2016, 2:49:25 PM12/18/16
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> That is what Microsoft is saying (actually, they now say it is a “typed
superset of JavaScript”) and Wikipedia is parroting. It is not necessarily
true.

If only there was some way to measure this... Ah yes:

<http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/>

Also, this is out of date though (TS 1.8 listed, and TS 2.1 is current).

Ticket: <https://github.com/kangax/compat-table/issues/919>

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Besides, it is not obvious that the correct answer to the question asked
> here is “Yes” even if TypeScript should turn out to be a conforming
> implementation of a *specific* Edition of ECMAScript (likely ECMAScript
> 2015). In fact, it is very likely that it is not a conforming
> implementation of *all* Editions of ECMAScript (“the ECMA-262 standards”).

What a foolish comment. Given that newer editions break backwards compatibility on purpose, it would be impossible and undesirable to be conformant to all specs simultaneously.

TypeScript aims to support the latest version of the spec + extensions and then compile to legacy versions, but I suspect you knew this and just simply want to be contrarian
0 new messages