Reasons To Be Pretty Script Pdf
Rode Neagle
For some reason, my pretty short script just refuses to print out or do anything after declaring variables, does anyone have an answer? I think it may actually be the wait for child and wait() but I don't know, because I just started Lua.Code:
Depending on where your LocalScript is, you are likely going to run into a timing issue. If this is in StarterPlayer > StarterCharacterScripts, then the code won't execute until the player's character is already created. So the order of events will be this :
When copying the table script for a summary table you actually want to copy the 'source' script that is automatically attached to the new data table. That script is usually pretty short and does not have New Column syntax in it (if you added new columns after the tabe was created you would first run the source script and then add the new columns). Try opening your data table and running this:
When copying the table script for a summary table you actually want to copy the 'source' script that is automatically attached to the new data table. That script is usually pretty short and does not have New Column syntax in it (if you added new columns after the table was created you would first run the source script and then add the new columns). Try opening your data table and running this:
The language experts at Microsoft looked at the situation and said, well, we could try to write a new language like people had done before. There are projects like Script#, which takes C sharp and turns it into JavaScript, or languages like CoffeeScript that said, what if JavaScript had a different syntax? But what they decided instead was to just take JavaScript and add static types on top of that.
A: Fundamentally, JavaScript gets a bad rap as a language, but it's actually pretty fun to work with. It lets you be a little dynamic sometimes and a little more intentional sometimes. It's just a great functional language. But the lack of static type checking really inhibits people's ability to write things that they can be confident will work before they run it.
TypeScript shores up that last rough edge on JavaScript and gives you something that's just really fun to work with and runs everywhere. I think if TypeScript were a language that was built on top of a less universal language or a less fun language, I don't think it would be as successful. It's really taking something that's great and making it better.
Q: It seems like static typing is sort of having a moment now. I've seen a lot of comments about appreciating the duck typing in Rust, the hints in Python. Why do you think static typing is so popular right now?
A: I think so. I mean, it's a big programming world out there. I don't think you're wrong to not like static types. I think that's a personal preference. There are certainly programs where static typing will get in your way. That's an important thing for us; we also provide tooling for JavaScript, and we still think that JavaScript is a totally valid way to develop. I would just say to people, if static types aren't a good fit for you, for either your programming style or the problem you're working on, just skip it. That's fine. It's okay. I won't be offended. If someone can get a thirty thousand line application that gets its job done without static types, I'm very impressed. That just seems really difficult. But kudos to those people who make it work.
Q: I know we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of Java. JavaScript has been with us for a while as well. And now, TypeScript. What is it about the trends that we've seen over the last decade, moving from working offline to working on the web, to working on mobile, that make JavaScript and now TypeScript such desirable tools?
Q: Right, the ability to learn a language that you're going to be able to use no matter where you end up at, unless you're a COBOL developer working on a government system or something.
A: We're always looking at what the user feedback is telling us, what people are asking for, looking at what the popular libraries in the JavaScript ecosystem are. All that helps us figure out what the right next feature to add to the language is.
Vue is up and coming. There's just too many to list, really. But as the different UI frameworks or underlying data manipulation libraries get more popular, we need to make sure that the language is able to represent those. GraphQL is getting popular. Well, can our type system accurately express the things that you need to do with GraphQL? Are there any gaps there?
We just want to make sure that we're representing the JavaScript ecosystem as it is, because ultimately, if people want to use the cool new JavaScript tech, but it doesn't work well with TypeScript, they're going to abandon TypeScript before they abandon JavaScript, right? That's why you're here. You want to write programs that do stuff, not just satisfy a type checker. So I think that's the most important thing for us.
But we also want to grow very intentionally. Popular programming languages, like you said, are twenty five, thirty, thirty five years old now. And we're at year eight. If we only have a quarter of the features that we actually need, we're still on pace.
Q: Most of the time, TypeScript is transpiled into JavaScript. With deno, It's a first class language. What do you think about efforts like that? And do you think browsers will ever do TypeScript first?
A: Deno is super cool. I love that someone's built this tech and is seeing what would happen with it. I think the browser case is really interesting because it seems like it makes sense. Then, every time I walk five steps ahead in my head, it all breaks down for me.
So for me, it's like, OK, you're going to serve TypeScript to the client. And then the clients can interpret the TypeScript. Well, if you don't want type checking on that file that you sent down, then there's really no point. Stripping off the type annotations is a very mechanical process and there's not a lot of value there. You can send down source maps or whatever, but that's more of a diagnostic debugger experience. So we get into this mode where we're sending this down as TypeScript so it can be type checked by the client.
My first question is, why is this the client's job? Because you push this TypeScript code up to the server, and I hope that it type checks at the point that you did that. If it didn't, it'd be weird to consider why you would have done that. And again, development scenarios are just totally a different beast here. I'd like to see more investment in the development space for questions like, would it make more sense to have that?
But anyway, let's say we keep going and type checking on the client. Well, you can't really start this type checking process until you've pulled all your dependencies in. And then you're gonna end up sending down .d.ts files that don't really do anything. And how did the .d.ts file get on your server?
I'm not going to say it's never going to happen, but I think there's a lot more room for technologies like what you see with `create-react-app`, where there's a live web server for development purposes, checking the types in the background as it serves up the transpiled JavaScript on the fly. Like, that's a fantastic model that renders all of my objections totally moot because the type checking is happening at a more logical time. Maybe there's some space for a browser plug in. But that model's a little confusing, too, because ultimately your `` tag is going to pull in a .js file unless suddenly all browsers everywhere support TypeScript. That's what you'll have to do.
It becomes a question of if you're debugging or loading, say, production HTML that references the .js files. Where in the process do we actually get the .ts file instead? Never say never. But to me it's kind of a not soon situation. Deno is completely its own thing because there it's a new runtime. So that scenario makes a lot more sense to me, at least to be type checking during the first time you run a script and making sure that you've got some compatible environments.
A: The whole time we've been working on this, we've had between four and eight core compiler engineers, one or two PMs, and four to zero dedicated testers. That's been pretty constant. We've been growing the team a little bit more intentionally lately.
We historically have had a core compiler team and then another team working on the Visual Studio side of things, because integrating into a large product like Visual Studio turns out to be a pretty large amount of work. But some architectural improvements on the VS side have freed up some engineer power over there. So we're roping in that team to help us out with refactoring and Go to Definition and that kind of thing. Same team size overall, except that now we're gonna have more people working on the core compiler services you see on the GitHub repo.
We are utterly dependent on the ecosystem to make a product that works in an integrated environment. So whether that's webpack or the plugins like ts-loader or how we work with rollup or Parcel or... name your bundler, right? That's all very complicated.
We're not staffed at a level that would let us fully own that experience. And we don't want to. The community should drive how TypeScript gets subsumed into these larger build processes and the larger ecosystem as a whole. As the JavaScript build pipeline expands and gets more complex, we see people stepping up and providing that functionality. That could be TypeScript and `create-react-app` or how TypeScript integrates with things like Vue. We just want to make sure that we're building the stuff that only we know how to build and then helping others with stuff that only they know how to build. A few milestones ago, we worked specifically with the ts-loader people to get a good project references implementation going there.
c80f0f1006