Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Angular 2 Being Built With Microsoft's TypeScript

Posted by samzenpus on from the if-you-build-it-they-will-type dept.

itwbennett writes Big news for fans of static typing! Google and Microsoft have partnered to both enhance TypeScript and rebuild Angular in the TypeScript language. TypeScript, Microsoft's attempt at improving on JavaScript development, has been out there for a while without a notable use case. Likewise, Dart, Google's attempt at a language which accomplishes many of the same goals, hasn't seen a lot of traction outside of Google. With Google creating the next version of its popular framework Angular 2 using TypeScript, some weight is being thrown behind a single effort. Of course, Angular has its fair share of haters, and a complete re-write in version 2 that breaks compatibility with previous versions isn't going to help matters.

91 comments

  1. This is really old news by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes @ script is a superset of Typescript and it will be used in Angular 2. Not really a hot news story.

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    1. Re:This is really old news by dos1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your info is out of date - a few days ago AtScript merge with TypeScript has been announced, so Angular 2 won't be written in AtScript, but TypeScript itself.

    2. Re:This is really old news by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting use of TypeScript, an entire rougelike (i.e. Nethack, i.e. the '@' game) game authoring library written in TypeScript, from the author of libtcod:
       
      Game: http://roguecentral.org/doryen/yendor.ts/game/index.html
      60fps example:http://roguecentral.org/doryen/yendor.ts/bench/index.html

      Library:https://github.com/jice-nospam/yendor.ts/releases/tag/v0.4.0
       
      What's interesting is it does alpha shading, fluid mechanics, cloud mechanics, terrain generation etc all inside of a text based game, somewhat like Dwarf Fortress but a lot more flexible graphically.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:This is really old news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Interesting use of TypeScript, an entire rougelike

      Really?

      1. A postmodern fantasy where a modern feminist can face off against the suffocatingly chauvinist entities of make-up.
      2. A misspelling of roguelike.

      Even Sarah Palin knew the difference between Rogue and Rouge :-(

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:This is really old news by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      An abacus is more graphically flexible than Dwarf Fortress.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    5. Re:This is really old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In would be just as easy to make this in bare-bones javascript. I don't see the advantage.

    6. Re:This is really old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! A spelling error! You know what he meant and you can even infer from the URL (roguecentral.org) in his post. Seriously the level of dickheadery around is mindblowing, people actually desperately wanting to be fuckwit because they want to say something but have nothing of any substance to add.

    7. Re:This is really old news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If he had the url right in front of him, then he's stupid not to be able to get the spelling right.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:This is really old news by terjeber · · Score: 1

      He will never be as stupid, mentally retarded and moronic as the one who corrected his spelling.

    9. Re:This is really old news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Feel better now? :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Fuck Google and Micro$hit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Proprietary company uses proprietary language extension to rewrite proprietary framework. *yawn*

    1. Re:Fuck Google and Micro$hit. by mikaere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bollocks. TypeScript is open source, just like Angular.

      --
      It's good luck to be superstitious
    2. Re:Fuck Google and Micro$hit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shut up with your facts so I can keep spelling Google as Scroogle and Microsoft with a dollar sign.

    3. Re:Fuck Google and Micro$hit. by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      What does jQuery has to do with this?

    4. Re:Fuck Google and Micro$hit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go away or i will replace you with a very small shell script

  3. Two Satans in the same place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    and at the same time. Nothing good can come from this. Fight christian soldiers! Fight like you have never fighted before.

  4. Wut? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't know how to tell whether I should care or not. Is it a language for creating angles? Mathematica can do that.

    If they haven't finished it, I don't think would care anyway.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Wut? by digsbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would appear you're not a web applications developer, then. AngularJS is a leading framework for web app development, and TypeScript is suddenly the most likely language to emerge from the pack of "front-end-statically-typed-languages-that-compiles-to-Javascript". If you're not doing web apps, you don't care, but lots of people will.

    2. Re:Wut? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm. I do web apps in Python with CGI. But people pay me to do crypto hardware.

      I guess I can wait another five minutes for the next web framework to come along.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, I see, so you actually _do_ know what it's about, but were feigning ignorance to appear smug and superior.

      Very good, carry on.

    4. Re:Wut? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I didn't actually know about angular and typescript, but I've been to their web sites now.

      It's not unreasonable, 63.8% of all projects will be aimed at fixing the mess that Javascript and DOM has wrought.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angular is a front end JS app framework only. The backend can be written in python/CGI/.net/ruby/node/whatever.

    6. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does web dev move like this? It doesn't seem like any other subsections of the industry switch dominant languages and frameworks every year. I'm a game developer with no part in web development myself; the closest I can say I get is developing some systems that happen to communicate via HTTP and JSON, but the web really never gets involved.

    7. Re:Wut? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I see, so you actually _do_ know what it's about, but were feigning ignorance to appear smug and superior.

      Very good, carry on.

      To be frank, I wasn't really anticipating an 'insightful' rating. CGI works fine for my purposes, but I don't make pretty, interactive websites.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  5. Not going to end well by theCat · · Score: 0, Troll

    Looks like a return to the old "embrace and extend" to me. And we know how that worked out.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Not going to end well by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it "worked out" with Microsoft opening up Entity Framework, ASP.Net, vNext, .Net, C#, F#, Typescript and a host of other things, on the industry standard platform for open source projects, GitHub, using the industry standard SCM for open source projects, git.

      How did it "work out" in your mind? Because from where I'm standing, open source won, it embraced and extended MS...

    2. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      This works both ways.

      MS can also be seen as embracing (everything you listed and then some) and extending (MSPL) open source, all it needs now is to find a legal route to extinguish and it's won.

    3. Re:Not going to end well by clay_buster · · Score: 1

      That all happened after embrace and extend and a worldview change at Microsoft

    4. Re:Not going to end well by exomondo · · Score: 1

      MS can also be seen as embracing (everything you listed and then some) and extending (MSPL) open source, all it needs now is to find a legal route to extinguish and it's won.

      You have a very odd definition of "won", I don't think any company would consider going through the process of developing products, getting people to use them, releasing them as open source and then somehow killing them off and then proclaiming "yes we won!"..."won" what?

    5. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like a return to the old "embrace and extend" to me. And we know how that worked out.

      Embrace and Extend has always worked quite well. It's when they tried to add "Extinguish" on it back in the 90s that it failed, in fact that strategy has failed every single time.

    6. Re:Not going to end well by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      None of the projects that were listed are released under Ms-PL (or any other MS-* license). Some of them were, but they were switched to Apache or MIT since then.

    7. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it "worked out" with Microsoft opening up Entity Framework, ASP.Net, vNext, .Net, C#, F#, Typescript and a host of other things...

      That's tot true. They are just opening those things needed to make it possible to run asp.net applications under non-windows servers. But don't expect microsoft opening the whole .net api and seeing .net desktop applications running on every platform, just like the way java has been working since its inception.

    8. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you've been away then:

      http://news.microsoft.com/2014/11/12/microsoft-takes-net-open-source-and-cross-platform-adds-new-development-capabilities-with-visual-studio-2015-net-2015-and-visual-studio-online/

      MS is not only building the CLR for Mac and Linux, but you can contribute to both on GitHub. And the compiler is itself written in C#, and open source. There are definitely parts that haven't been opened up yet, but they're mainly in technologies that have hit a kind of EOL, like WPF.

    9. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compiler may be open but unless visual studio + tools are made available for all those platforms I doubt any serious development could be done on them. Apple uses open source compilers too but I'm yet to see somebody developing iOS applications without OSX. Microsoft needs people to user their OS too.

      About WPF, I don't know if it's EOLed or not but tons or applications rely on it and there is little chance they will someday run on another platform than microsoft's.

    10. Re:Not going to end well by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You suffer from a severe case of paranoia. Go see a psychologist.

    11. Re:Not going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your advice but I actually prefer seeing your mother. She's cheaper and everybody feels great after using her services.

  6. JavaScript framework du jour by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Don't waste time learning this framework. In a month there's a newer and even better framework which will only be supported for a few months before everybody bails to yet another framework.

    1. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by mrbester · · Score: 2

      And it too will have its own way of doing things that nothing else does, just like Angular and React are right now. At least jQuery was open from the beginning that devs should know the language that it mostly shielded them from. Now it doesn't seem to matter; job postings are mainly for those who can write , not JavaScript. Don't know the particular framework du jour (or preferably *all* of them)? Tough.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Take 2: "those who can write *insert framework*..."

      Use take 2.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes let's all just not bother learning anything ever because something new that will replace it is always around the corner.

    4. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a month

      Release 0.9.0 of Angular was 52 months ago and the appearance of the next framework that topples it will be the first. As a web developer, if you haven't actually used Angular for at least experimental purposes by now then you're an old fogy that's likely to get canned for someone more current.

      Angular 2.0 won't trip up anyone and going with Typescript was a smart and pragmatic decision; the Angular team does not indulge NIH, apparently. That sort of humility and wisdom is both rare and a big part of the reason Angular remains popular. The tools that typical Angular developers use already integrate Typescript declarations for auto-complete, detecting errors, etc., and now that will just get stronger.

      Google could have used their momentum and mind share to bull AtScript into yet another Javascript hairball. They could have and they didn't. That deserves acknowledgement.

      So Typescript is the way. Microsoft has actually managed to contribute something they can't monetize to the modern web stack. How times have changed.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 2

      Perhaps but I recently got back into Knockout on an engagement, and I'd rather use Angular at the dentist than go back to that du jour again.

    6. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I bet you'll soon see job ads like:

          "Must have at least 6 years experience on the next-big-thing of next month."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Could you shill a little harder? I'm not convinced yet.

    8. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently no one is allowed to disagree with you.

    9. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      IE invented Ajax and css. My have people forgotten this. Much of IE 6 css had css 3 functionality. Just Web standards moved away from it in 2001

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    10. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I haven't used Angular for pretty much anything. I've used Ember, though, because someone else on the team liked it. I mostly do server-side development anyway. I mostly just leave the client-side stuff to the colored-pencil jockeys.

      I despise Javascript and wish it would die a horrible, ugly death, allowing something not completely made of shit to take its place.

      I'm a web developer, and my web services don't trust your shitty client-side code (nor do my data integration components trust your poorly-constructed files), so they'll enforce restrictions that will make you whine and cry and you'll have to just deal with it. Why? Because data integrity and business rules are more important than your precious animations, your stupid by-convention framework's auto-generating code style, or your garbage "architecture". And that's also why I hate Javascript. It's not so much that it isn't useful, but it lets so many incompetent idiots act like they have "mad skillz".

    11. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      >if you haven't actually used Angular for at least experimental purposes by now then you're an old fogy that's likely to get canned for someone more current.

      Not even in the slightest. Every 4 years there's a big attempt to tell me this is the case, and yet less than a year after that I'm still fixing up the shitty apps developed in these frameworks, while everyone else moves on to another hot topic. Keep it up. I'm making a mint off your collective incompetence and stubborn insistence that Angular is the most amazing thing since sliced bread (it isn't, it's just another lame Gears type of thing while the web incorporates its useful ideas, and the rest becomes a pile of disused crapware).

    12. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It's not a complete loss. Virtually all of these frameworks are doing the same damned thing and implementing the same damned patterns just with different code. And underneath Angular or WhateverReplacesIt will be the usual heap of JS libs - JQuery, Underscore, Backbone et al. So knowledge is transferable even if AngularJS stops being fashionable.

    13. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      You praise MS for contributing something they aren't monetizing ... but do you choose to work for free?

    14. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      You praise MS for contributing something they aren't monetizing ... but do you choose to work for free?

      Occasionally. Much like many for-profit businesses that use and rely upon open source software, I too contribute to projects that either interest me or are important to my livelihood.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    15. Re:JavaScript framework du jour by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Fair enough! Objection rescinded.

  7. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next step: make Angular maintainable and non-magic for mortal programmers.

  8. What is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what exactly is angular?

    1. Re:What is it? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      No idea. I prefer perpendicular anyway.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  9. Abandonware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So why should I start using this, when Google has a history of abandoning their projects after a couple of years?

  10. Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time someone writes "open source language", a pet dies.

    Programs can be open source, but languages are not programs. They are specifications of syntax, grammar and semantics. Maybe we have an Open Source compiler for the TypeScript language, but who defines the language itself? Is it a foundation or similarly open group participated by the community and key players of the industry, or is it steered behind closed doors in some meeting room in Redmond, WA? That is what matters.

    Compilers... nobody pays for a compiler nowadays, and Microsoft is very aware of that. They are not stupid.

    1. Re:Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >nobody pays for a compiler nowadays
      can you convince Microchip of that? please?

    2. Re:Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Convince them of what? You've been able to get Visual Studio Express for free for most of this decade.

    3. Re:Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convince them of what? You've been able to get Visual Studio Express for free for most of this decade.

      Visual Studio Express is developed by Microsoft, he wrote "Microchip". Not sure what he was trying to get at with that.

    4. Re:Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Microchip, makers of MPLAB, they still charge for their compiler.

    5. Re:Open Source... Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but in the years of arduinos, pi's with Johnny five, still people pays for microchip!

  11. Haters..pfft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Angular is the shit. My term for web development with JavaScript pre-Angular (and similar tools) was "Web Assembly Language" (WAL). It was so fucking tedious, it took so much work do do simple shit, etc...

    Angular isn't for every project, just like sometimes you have to be the poor fucker writing assembly language for some very narrow cases. But for most projects it (and tools like it) are the shit.

  12. Work with IE 8 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0

    Otherwise my client isn't interested

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:Work with IE 8 by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Your client saveie6.com has migrated to IE 8?

  13. Definition of 'use case' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the summary (emphasis mine):

    Microsoft's attempt at improving on JavaScript development, has been out there for a while without a notable use case.

    That is not what 'use case' means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case). The phrase you're looking for is "without a notable real-world use".

  14. An infinitely solved problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    We're done. We can compile C into ASM.js, which is JIT compiled by Chrome & IE, and AOT (ahead of time) compiled and cached by Firefox.

    We're done. The snake has ate its tail. All languages, static or dynamic, now can be compiled and ran in the browser. The theoretical proposition that any Turing Complete language can be implemented via another has now been put into legitimate use.

    In the future, Hybrid Compilable and Interpretable VM bytecode will tighten this loop and allow seamless on the fly linking between disparate languages across all platforms.

    My meta-language can already compile into C, Perl, Python, Lisp, ASM.js, and VM bytecode. I currently have to maintain a "runtime" library for each of these base languages. A standard feature API for windowing, audio, graphics, etc. would take the place of my "API adapter" abstraction layer.

    This means ALL NEW LANGUAGES are irrelevant. I simply port my language adapter runtime to the language, then add a module to the meta compiler to output in that language, then I can compile ALL OF MY EXISTING WHEELS down into the new language before my competition can master the new whimsical "expressiveness" of the platform.

    Write your code in a meta language, and never reinvent the wheel again.

  15. And Dart? by patniemeyer · · Score: 1

    A year ago they were slowing work on AngularJS to put more effort into a complete rewrite with AngularDart.
    Dart is a better language than TypeScript and it's a Google creation... I have no idea why they did this.

    1. Re:And Dart? by enantiomer2000 · · Score: 2

      Actually they will be writing it in typescript which will compile to both AngularJS and AngularDart projects. Two birds with one stone. It is pretty awesome actually...

    2. Re:And Dart? by Sudline · · Score: 1

      Yet, there are very good reasons... - JavaScript is improving, making Dart-JS useless. The best part of Dart are only supported by Chrome. - TypeScript compile JS to any browser not just Chrome. Angular working only on Chrome would become irrelevant.

    3. Re:And Dart? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      TypeScript is a strict superset of JavaScript (in fact, the only thing it adds on top of ES6 is static type annotations - strip those from the AST, and you've got valid ES6 code with same exact semantics). Dart is not.

    4. Re:And Dart? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Typescript is balls as a language (for all the reasons JS is) but it's succeeding probably because it's familiar to JS / AS devs and static typing is a good thing. So you can reuse existing JS code and there are TS definition files for most popular JS libs too. So better than JS but still suffering from many of the same issues - strict model, weird binding rules etc.

      What is ironic that the two leading JS replacements actually manage to be orthogonal - Typescript adds extra verbiage and Coffeescript attempts to strip out the verbiage.

      As for Dart, I think Google spooked devs by intending to add a Dart VM to Chrome. Even if it could compile into JS, it sent the message that their intention was to replace JS with this other thing or run the two side by side. It's not the first time a company has tried to do this - VBscript in IE was another example.

  16. Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by tgv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't care about Angular. It's just another tool for the saps in the web page mines (and one that can get you trapped in those mines as well).

    TypeScript, OTOH, is the greatest addition to JavaScript I've seen. No more messy .prototype., and much less "can't read property 'x' of undefined". It's not there yet, I must say. I would like it to add some more transformations instead of just type checking, but if you have to write in JavaScript: do yourself a favor, and check it out.

    1. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I would like it to add some more transformations

      If you mean syntactic sugar, then it has plenty: classes and modules and arrow lambdas (which capture "this") are two prominent ones. TS 1.4 adds a bunch more, like "let". And yes, everything in TS other than type annotations and their checking is basically ES6; but TS can compile those things down to ES5.

    2. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by tgv · · Score: 1

      Not just syntactic sugar. I would like something like the implicit lambda from Java, like this: people.sort(Person::getLastName); instead of having to write people.sort(function(p: Person): string {return p.getLastName();}). There are one or two other practical thingies in Java and C# that could be easily translated to JS too.

      For type checking, I would like private/public and const, too. I hate const, but sometimes it's the best.

    3. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if you have to write in JavaScript: do yourself a favor, and check it out.

      Why? Duck typing is a language feature and javascript already has typed arrays.

    4. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      > No more messy .prototype
      I kinda like prototype based object orientation, but of course in the hands of someone dangerous it is far worse than classes.

        > "can't read property 'x' of undefined"
      Failure to initialize a variable, all dynamic languages have this problem in spades and it is somewhat common in static typed languages that allow a null value as well (NullPointerException, seg-fault...)

      One thing I do hate about javascript is how there is both null and undefined, you end up needing to check for both
      if (variable === null && typeof variable === "undefined" { ... }

      Check this out:
      var a= {}
      a.b= undefined;
      a.c= null;
      Object.keys(a); // will return ["b", "c"]

    5. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by tgv · · Score: 1

      > I kinda like prototype based object orientation

      TypeScript uses just that, but it just reads better.

      > Failure to initialize a variable, all dynamic languages have this problem in spades

      Static typing can prevent that. Typescript warns against passing a wrong argument, or getting a non-existing member, which cause a lot of the "can't read property" errors.

    6. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you really need that sugar for lambdas, if you can write people.sort(p => p.getLastName())? It doesn't really save you all that many keystrokes...

      "const" is actually coming in TS 1.4 (as another ES6 feature - it's paired with "let"). "private" and "public" are already there (and have been since 1.0).

    7. Re:Angular: meh. TypeScript: great. by tgv · · Score: 1

      It's not the keystrokes, it's just an obvious and safe transformation. If all we cared about was number of keystrokes, all our code would be candidate of the Obfuscated C contest.

      > "const" is actually coming in TS 1.4

      That's not the const I meant: I would like to see const members and parameters. The 1.4 const is for declaring static constants only, and requires ES6, it seems.

      Sorry about private and public. I must have forgotten about them...

  17. From the inventors of hUNgarian notation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You remember that? lpStr and things? Where you prefixed some cooked up type notation to the variable name? What can possibly go wrong?

    (The reason, at that time btw was that their C compiler was too crappy to do type checking itself).

    1. Re:From the inventors of hUNgarian notation? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      I assume you have a mullet too, since you're stuck in the 1980s

  18. One question by jeillah · · Score: 2

    What major Google product uses Angular?

    1. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      google trends
      doubleclick
      chromecast
      youtube for ps3

  19. TypeScript vs Coffeescript by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

    Anyone can point the cool things that one have and the other doesn't. Sure static typing is nice and all but I rather dislike static typing for big iterative projects, refactoring static typed code is a pain in the ass. Yet at the same time static typing makes a lot easier for a new dev in a big project to start being productive without breaking the whole thing (although test-driven development in dynamic typing languages help a lot in this regard).

    Also how are the tools for typescript? Having static typing but no auto-complete IDE is a major drawback. In my opinion the main advantage of using static typing after compile-time errors are the auto-complete IDEs. What about debugging? Coffeescript can be debug rather easily on browser debugger because all variable names remain the same, Clojurescript has the REPL that I believe can push code into the browser, what about typescript?

    1. Re:TypeScript vs Coffeescript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VS2013/WebStorm/Sublime all have Typescript auto-complete. Debugging is supported in VS2013 (the others might but i can't speak from experience). Also Chrome allows for debugging in the native .ts files because of source mapping.

    2. Re:TypeScript vs Coffeescript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that multiplied by 2 for TypeScript. Better debugging, IDE, auto-complete, refactoring you name it with VS 2013 than you could dream of with CoffeeScript.

      And the static typing is 'opt in'. You can put the type 'any' on objects you want to remain dynamic. But the biggest bonus of static typing for me was catching all the typos and mis-capitalization type errors in variable naming etc. There's usually a few in every JavaScript or CoffeeScript project I work on that usually blow up at runtime during development but sometimes get released to customers before blowing up, which is just unacceptable for any kind of serious professional software development.

  20. It's a *trap* :) by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Funny

    Also how are the tools for typescript? Having static typing but no auto-complete IDE is a major drawback.

    Visual Studio 2013.

    1. Re:It's a *trap* :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IntelliJ.

  21. In other new, Angular 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other new, Angular 3 is planned for next year using MVVM pattern and Google's new HTML5+JS generator that was previously used for converting Flash. Same as with Angular 2, it is not backwards compatible and will be maintained for 2 years.

  22. Another Andres Hejisberg success story... by ndykman · · Score: 1

    He really does have the knack for programming language design. I didn't get TypeScript at first, but with 1.4, it clicked. The great news about this is that Angular is a highly visible framework, and with this, more people will look at TypeScript and be willing to use it. Thanks to type definition files and definitelytyped.org, you can use a ton of JS libraries right now; hopefully, more people will officially maintain these files.

    Also, this makes it easier to recommend it's use in work projects. Being able to say: "It's good enough for Angular, it's good enough for us" helps a ton.