In real life, when I come across the type of morons who regularly posts online, I really want to punch them in the face. Kick them in the groin. Rip out their tongues so that they can stop insulting me with their dumb-ass arguments. That is my natural behavior. Social pressure as humans went from wild animals to socialized beings have made us frown upon such social behavior. Whacking someone over the head with a chair just because he is dumb enough to believe in Intelligent Design might be the right, and desirable thing to do, but we can't. Not any more. Sadly.
Online we can. Verbally. So it brings out the true personality within.
Well, of course you have it easy if you don't even have to make it work on IE6 *as well as everything else*. Duh!
You accuse me of being ignorant
I think you just proved it. You seem to arguing that IE9 is a bad browser. That is your opinion, but is it a bad browser because IE6 is a bad browser? Is it a bad browser because you have to make your stuff work on IE6 *as well as everything else*? Please enlighten me as to what specifically makes IE9 a bad browser. It sure can't be JS performance since you have to accommodate IE6, with worse performance.
You probably assume that no one else has to deal with the messes of IE 6 and XP
No, I leave baseless assumptions to you. I am not sure how IE6 and XP makes IE9 and later bad though.
I can't believe you have been such an venomous asshat yet you don't even have to solve the same range of problems that other web devs are cursed with
I have been talking about IE9 and 10. IE6 is a piece of junk (today, it was innovative in its time). Why would IE6 and XP be relevant to that discussion? Are you completely incapable of staying on point?
Is it true or not that TypeScript adds (removable) annotations to Javascript, and hence can be considered a variant of Javascript? true or false?
False. TypeScript includes removable annotations, but the annotations are not carried over to the compiled JavaScript.
I can use one tech no matter whether I'm on Linux or Windows
Cool, so can I when I work on JBoss related stuff, but how is that relevant for this discussion. TypeScript is built on Node.js and works on all platforms supported by Node.
Hence, any neutral reader would deduce you are a proponent of IE based on your statements
They would? I stated that I work on IE, which anyone who does web development has to. Obviously. I also said that IE9 is a good browser, it is, particularly compared to older versions of IE. But even so, it is quite a decent browser in its own right. I understand you don't feel that way, and you claim (without any backup) that IE9 is not at all good (or so it seems). Can you be specific about what it is about IE9 that is bad? What specific problems have you run into with IE9?
Just to add my point to the above, I had a few places where I had made IE6 specific modifications, and when IE9 was released I still used those when rendering on IE9. That didn't work since IE9 fixed a number of problems IE6 had, and those made the IE6 specific part of my pages show up wrong. I don't know how MS could have done that right though, these were work-arounds for bugs (many div placement bugs) in IE6, fixing those errors would obviously make IE6 specific markup break. I have, using jQuery, Normalizr etc, not had any need for IE9 specifics lately though. There are some things IE9 do not support yet, but that has so far been a non-issue.
Therefore, your statements indicate you think IE is "great" and that there is little point in getting Javascript experts involved in fixing Javascript support in IE.
You are again using assumptions based on ignorance. Why do you continue with that? Microsoft is a huge company. The people who have been doing TypeScript have nothing to do with the browser division. They are working on programming languages with Anders Hejlsberg. Do you understand the difference between a programming language and a browser? Do you understand that someone working on developing programming languages may not want to work on the browser? That moving a person between divisions like that is going to create significant problems with zero benefit? Honestly, if you still think that the fact that Anders and a handful of others working on TypeScript was resource mis-management because they should have been working on fixing IE, then you are a complete moron with no experience from real life whatsoever. It would have been a really stupid idea to move Anders to the IE team. He would have resigned on the spot. It's not even close to his cup-of-tea.
why be contrary and say they are great
Wow, you really are a moron. Seriously. Let's continue with car analogies here. I drive a Volvo S60. It's a really nice car. My friend drives a Toyota Avalon. It's a really nice car. Now, please tell me, was the last statement contrary? Are you really that dumb?
continued ad-hominems
Sigh. As with so many others, you mistake a description of your person as an ad-hominem attack. It is not. Here, I'll try to teach you something today. An ad-hominem attack is an attack that is used to discredit the arguments of a person by attacking the credibility of the person without addressing the persons specific arguments. In other words, "you cant trust this idiot because he is an idiot" is an ad-hominem attack since there is no attempt to refute anything "the idiot" presumably said. "You can't trust this idiots argument because he just made it up on the spot, see here is the evidence, presented by the moron him self",
Microsoft will fiddle around creating *yet another* Javascript variant
Wow, you still haven't read about TypeScript. You still base your comments solely on dogma and ignorance. Ass was an understatement.
Typescript may give an certifiable MSDN type like yourself a woody
Sigh. What did I tell you about assumptions? Yes, I develop for Microsoft browsers, but no, I am not an "MSDN type". I use two primary technologies for server-side work depending on how things are to be deployed. I use ASP.NET MVC (which is a really strong web development framework) when I deploy on Windows, and I use JBoss, J2EE and Seam when working on Linux. Currently, on the server side, my efforts are probably 60% J2EE on JBoss, 20% ASP.NET MVC and 20% maintaining a couple of desktop apps written by others. For personal stuff I prefer Ruby, but Ruby is a PITA to deploy.
What does give me "a woody" is anything that can improve the JavaScript programming experience, and that is what TypeScript does. It makes the development experience a lot better without driving me into using a whole new tool set with a completely different programming language. Have you ever wondered why GWT has such a slow up-take at Google? You'd know if you'd tried to use and deploy it.
fanboi like yourself expects us to drool uncritically whenever Microsoft release an extended dialect of Javascript
Again with the assumptions. No, I have not claimed that you should drool over TypeScript, I have just pointed out that making strong statements on something based purely on dogma paired with ignorance of the topic on which you are commenting is more than a little dumb. You seem to disagree with that. That is naturally, since you still insist that dogma and ignorance are good backgrounds for commenting.
Care to make a wager about voluntary IE 10 adoption?
Why would I care? Does it appear to you that I am a fan of IE10 and that I want people to go back to IE10 from Chrome? Have you found a single statement of mine that implies that? If you have, you need to speak to your doctor about those anti-hallucination medications you need.
Here is your problem. You think that I, since I have said that Microsoft has done a good job with IE9 and now IE10, I am a fan of said browsers and that I am dying to use them. Those are assumptions. They are based on dogma and ignorance and no credible evidence. I have said nothing of the kind. You have assumed that when I said Microsoft is getting better, that I am a huge Microsoft fan that wants them to give it to me hard in the out-door. I would recommend you try, in the future, to argue what people in fact say, not what your hallucinations are trying to argue. The voices in your head are not real.
If the latter, and you create cross-browser solutions, then I'd be very interested to know what toolkit you are using - IE 9 and earlier are a PITA!
I build cross-browser solutions for internet consumption. I have no problems at all. Honestly. We do warn IE6 users that they might run into issues since we do not test on IE6, but other than that, no PITA. When starting a project I always include jQuery, Modernizr, 960.gs and lately Knockout. jQuery UI is typically also always a component.
you were indeed insulting unnecessarily
I was just pointing out that strong statements based purely on dogma and ignorance is a little dumb. Your first statements were based purely on dogma and ignorance.
Microsoft has threatened Linux (and all those who use it) for decades
Ballmer has, on a few occasions, claimed that Linux, to be free, must be patent free, and that it is not. He hasn't stated which patents Linux violates. What he hasn't done though, is actually threaten to do something about it. In other words, he's been FUD'ing more than actually threatening.
Also, considering Microsoft has been one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux kernel code for the past few years, it would seem your paranoia is just a little bit stale. Linux is also an important offering on Azure.
Microsoft does have limited resources, spreading them shot-gun style is interesting for their employees but doesn't fix their fundamental issue
Seriously? That is your argument? Do you really think that developing TypeScript in the programming language division of Microsoft, a division that has nothing whatsoever to do with the browser division, slows down the browser guys? Really? Do you think, for example, it would help the browser guys if Anders, who was one of a handful of developers on TypeScript, moved to the browser division? Why would you think that? Ignoring the fact that Anders would leave on the spot, what do you think he could have done to improve the quality of IE10? Oh, and BTW, IE10 is released to MSDN subscribers now (has been for a while) and will be released to the rest of the world in about three weeks.
personally I think TypeScript is just-another-Javascript
Why do you keep posting on a topic you haven't bothered to read up on?
Hence, I argue that Microsoft are wasting their time with TypeScript and should have spent effort making IE better
Why on earth would you argue that? Microsoft is clearly, and evidently to anyone with a clue, making IE better. IE9 was a huge step forward, and IE10 is even more so. I use Chrome my self, but for work I have to work with IE as well, and IE9 and 10 are really good browsers in their own right. Arguing that MS should drop TypeScript and work on IE instead is like saying Ford should stop making blue cars and work on better engines instead. The team that does TypeScript probably don't even know who the guys on the IE team is.
Incidentally, I noticed you were severely enraged and resorted to calling me an ass
I was not, I was just pointing out the obvious. People who comment on things based solely on ignorance and bigotry are asses, no matter how you look at it.
I have done my amount of web programming, for example, by doing Ajax, something Microsoft invented. Yes, IE6 is a broken piece of junk, but it is also an ancient piece of junk. At the time IE6 was released, every single browser "broke the web". There was no such thing as a standard way of doing anything.
If you said that the web as such was seriously broken back when IE6 was released, that would have been reasonably accurate. IE6 didn't do anything special to "break the web", but through inaction, Microsoft allowed IE6 to live significantly longer than it should have. The most likely reason for this was complacency. Yes, Microsoft made things hard by not upgrading IE6 as more modern technologies started permeating the competition, and it also did nothing as the rest of the world moved towards standards, but claiming they broke something in the years after 2001 with a product released in 2001 is absurd.
With IE5 and IE6 though, Microsoft made Ajax possible. How's that for breaking the web.
when is IE (Internet Explorer) going to support WebGL, like every browser does?
When WebGL improves and becomes a little less like ActiveX. Microsoft got badly burned by ActiveX and learned that you should be very careful with such extensions. WebGL is a security nightmare. By design.
Probably the code that is remaining will lack something that the annotations gave
Now we know why the first syllable of assumption is "ass". If you had tried to read the article instead of being one, you would have looked a lot less like an idiot.
otherwise, what is the point of even having them?
Again, ass. Read the article, it answers your question and makes you look dumb in one nice package.
Once you start writing in TypeScript you are forever bound to Microsoft
Why don't you read the f#cking article before you go out and, frothing at the mouth, try to preach a gospel that is provably wrong? You guys are worse than mentally handicapped tea-baggers with an Intelligent Design agenda.
once upon-a-time they were the shizzle promoted by Microsoft and now people have to spend their time maintaining them with old and outdated tools
Why in the hell can't Microsoft follow conventions and standards?
They are, they do. Why can't the religious nuts on/. learn how to read? Why do so many/.ers prefer their own religious dogma to observable fact? I mean, mention "Microsoft" in a sentence and these people go more nuts than the Intelligent Design maniacs.
Are you mentally handicapped or something? Did someone steal your reading glasses? Do you actually know how to read? TypeScript is not a language you run in a browser. It can't be extended to support Microsoft only technologies. It is just another way to write bog standard JavaScript. Is that so hard to understand? Yes, Microsoft can alter their version of JavaScript in IE12, in fact I assume they will, JS is a moving target at least until ECMA6. So what? How does that matter? Are you saying all versions of JavaScript in all browsers are the same? If so, you have never done JavaScript.
TypeScript is a compiler that emits JavaScript. TypeScript doesn't run in a browser. TypeScript can not be extended to be incompatible with other browsers since it doesn't run in a browser.
TypesScript can, on the other hand, be used to write JavaScript that is browser specific. Just as JavaScript can be used to write JavaScript that is browser specific.
I really wished the Microsoft hating religious nuts on/. would start reading more than the word "Microsoft" in articles before spouting the ignorant and rather idiotic nonsense on/.
No, it's the lunatics at/. that are getting dumber. Every time they read "Microsoft" they go insane. It's sad really.
1/ The software is fully open source (Apache 2.0 licensed)
2/ It's not really possible to extend something when you are not extending it. RTDA.
Sadly the Microsoft hating morons are out in force on this one. Pity for them. This is actually a good way of improving the JavaScript experience without the possibility of embrace, extend, extinguish, as opposed to, for example Dart.
Sigh. You didn't read the article either. That is a pity, since it makes you look stupid. Here is a clue for you: MS is not adding this language to the browser. Again, for the slow among us: MS is NOT adding an update to Javascript to their browser. Nothing new is being added to the browser at all.
The new language is doing what Scott Hanselman hinted to some time back, it treats browser-neutral JavaScript as "assembly language". Compilers for better better languages compile their source to browser-neutral JavaScript. What is deployed is not a new language and not a new browser plugin. What is deployed is bog standard JavaScript.
You should read an article before commenting on it. Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are a moron than to open it and remove all doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
In real life, when I come across the type of morons who regularly posts online, I really want to punch them in the face. Kick them in the groin. Rip out their tongues so that they can stop insulting me with their dumb-ass arguments. That is my natural behavior. Social pressure as humans went from wild animals to socialized beings have made us frown upon such social behavior. Whacking someone over the head with a chair just because he is dumb enough to believe in Intelligent Design might be the right, and desirable thing to do, but we can't. Not any more. Sadly.
Online we can. Verbally. So it brings out the true personality within.
Well, of course you have it easy if you don't even have to make it work on IE6 *as well as everything else*. Duh!
You accuse me of being ignorant
I think you just proved it. You seem to arguing that IE9 is a bad browser. That is your opinion, but is it a bad browser because IE6 is a bad browser? Is it a bad browser because you have to make your stuff work on IE6 *as well as everything else*? Please enlighten me as to what specifically makes IE9 a bad browser. It sure can't be JS performance since you have to accommodate IE6, with worse performance.
You probably assume that no one else has to deal with the messes of IE 6 and XP
No, I leave baseless assumptions to you. I am not sure how IE6 and XP makes IE9 and later bad though.
I can't believe you have been such an venomous asshat yet you don't even have to solve the same range of problems that other web devs are cursed with
I have been talking about IE9 and 10. IE6 is a piece of junk (today, it was innovative in its time). Why would IE6 and XP be relevant to that discussion? Are you completely incapable of staying on point?
Is it true or not that TypeScript adds (removable) annotations to Javascript, and hence can be considered a variant of Javascript? true or false?
False. TypeScript includes removable annotations, but the annotations are not carried over to the compiled JavaScript.
I can use one tech no matter whether I'm on Linux or Windows
Cool, so can I when I work on JBoss related stuff, but how is that relevant for this discussion. TypeScript is built on Node.js and works on all platforms supported by Node.
Hence, any neutral reader would deduce you are a proponent of IE based on your statements
They would? I stated that I work on IE, which anyone who does web development has to. Obviously. I also said that IE9 is a good browser, it is, particularly compared to older versions of IE. But even so, it is quite a decent browser in its own right. I understand you don't feel that way, and you claim (without any backup) that IE9 is not at all good (or so it seems). Can you be specific about what it is about IE9 that is bad? What specific problems have you run into with IE9?
Just to add my point to the above, I had a few places where I had made IE6 specific modifications, and when IE9 was released I still used those when rendering on IE9. That didn't work since IE9 fixed a number of problems IE6 had, and those made the IE6 specific part of my pages show up wrong. I don't know how MS could have done that right though, these were work-arounds for bugs (many div placement bugs) in IE6, fixing those errors would obviously make IE6 specific markup break. I have, using jQuery, Normalizr etc, not had any need for IE9 specifics lately though. There are some things IE9 do not support yet, but that has so far been a non-issue.
Therefore, your statements indicate you think IE is "great" and that there is little point in getting Javascript experts involved in fixing Javascript support in IE.
You are again using assumptions based on ignorance. Why do you continue with that? Microsoft is a huge company. The people who have been doing TypeScript have nothing to do with the browser division. They are working on programming languages with Anders Hejlsberg. Do you understand the difference between a programming language and a browser? Do you understand that someone working on developing programming languages may not want to work on the browser? That moving a person between divisions like that is going to create significant problems with zero benefit? Honestly, if you still think that the fact that Anders and a handful of others working on TypeScript was resource mis-management because they should have been working on fixing IE, then you are a complete moron with no experience from real life whatsoever. It would have been a really stupid idea to move Anders to the IE team. He would have resigned on the spot. It's not even close to his cup-of-tea.
why be contrary and say they are great
Wow, you really are a moron. Seriously. Let's continue with car analogies here. I drive a Volvo S60. It's a really nice car. My friend drives a Toyota Avalon. It's a really nice car. Now, please tell me, was the last statement contrary? Are you really that dumb?
continued ad-hominems
Sigh. As with so many others, you mistake a description of your person as an ad-hominem attack. It is not. Here, I'll try to teach you something today. An ad-hominem attack is an attack that is used to discredit the arguments of a person by attacking the credibility of the person without addressing the persons specific arguments. In other words, "you cant trust this idiot because he is an idiot" is an ad-hominem attack since there is no attempt to refute anything "the idiot" presumably said. "You can't trust this idiots argument because he just made it up on the spot, see here is the evidence, presented by the moron him self",
Microsoft will fiddle around creating *yet another* Javascript variant
Wow, you still haven't read about TypeScript. You still base your comments solely on dogma and ignorance. Ass was an understatement.
Typescript may give an certifiable MSDN type like yourself a woody
Sigh. What did I tell you about assumptions? Yes, I develop for Microsoft browsers, but no, I am not an "MSDN type". I use two primary technologies for server-side work depending on how things are to be deployed. I use ASP.NET MVC (which is a really strong web development framework) when I deploy on Windows, and I use JBoss, J2EE and Seam when working on Linux. Currently, on the server side, my efforts are probably 60% J2EE on JBoss, 20% ASP.NET MVC and 20% maintaining a couple of desktop apps written by others. For personal stuff I prefer Ruby, but Ruby is a PITA to deploy.
What does give me "a woody" is anything that can improve the JavaScript programming experience, and that is what TypeScript does. It makes the development experience a lot better without driving me into using a whole new tool set with a completely different programming language. Have you ever wondered why GWT has such a slow up-take at Google? You'd know if you'd tried to use and deploy it.
fanboi like yourself expects us to drool uncritically whenever Microsoft release an extended dialect of Javascript
Again with the assumptions. No, I have not claimed that you should drool over TypeScript, I have just pointed out that making strong statements on something based purely on dogma paired with ignorance of the topic on which you are commenting is more than a little dumb. You seem to disagree with that. That is naturally, since you still insist that dogma and ignorance are good backgrounds for commenting.
Care to make a wager about voluntary IE 10 adoption?
Why would I care? Does it appear to you that I am a fan of IE10 and that I want people to go back to IE10 from Chrome? Have you found a single statement of mine that implies that? If you have, you need to speak to your doctor about those anti-hallucination medications you need.
Here is your problem. You think that I, since I have said that Microsoft has done a good job with IE9 and now IE10, I am a fan of said browsers and that I am dying to use them. Those are assumptions. They are based on dogma and ignorance and no credible evidence. I have said nothing of the kind. You have assumed that when I said Microsoft is getting better, that I am a huge Microsoft fan that wants them to give it to me hard in the out-door. I would recommend you try, in the future, to argue what people in fact say, not what your hallucinations are trying to argue. The voices in your head are not real.
If the latter, and you create cross-browser solutions, then I'd be very interested to know what toolkit you are using - IE 9 and earlier are a PITA!
I build cross-browser solutions for internet consumption. I have no problems at all. Honestly. We do warn IE6 users that they might run into issues since we do not test on IE6, but other than that, no PITA. When starting a project I always include jQuery, Modernizr, 960.gs and lately Knockout. jQuery UI is typically also always a component.
you were indeed insulting unnecessarily
I was just pointing out that strong statements based purely on dogma and ignorance is a little dumb. Your first statements were based purely on dogma and ignorance.
Microsoft has threatened Linux (and all those who use it) for decades
Ballmer has, on a few occasions, claimed that Linux, to be free, must be patent free, and that it is not. He hasn't stated which patents Linux violates. What he hasn't done though, is actually threaten to do something about it. In other words, he's been FUD'ing more than actually threatening.
Also, considering Microsoft has been one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux kernel code for the past few years, it would seem your paranoia is just a little bit stale. Linux is also an important offering on Azure.
The only people who think that Apple can create and expand on a range of high quality devices are the people Jimmy Kimmel interviewed:
the emperor's new phone
Microsoft does have limited resources, spreading them shot-gun style is interesting for their employees but doesn't fix their fundamental issue
Seriously? That is your argument? Do you really think that developing TypeScript in the programming language division of Microsoft, a division that has nothing whatsoever to do with the browser division, slows down the browser guys? Really? Do you think, for example, it would help the browser guys if Anders, who was one of a handful of developers on TypeScript, moved to the browser division? Why would you think that? Ignoring the fact that Anders would leave on the spot, what do you think he could have done to improve the quality of IE10? Oh, and BTW, IE10 is released to MSDN subscribers now (has been for a while) and will be released to the rest of the world in about three weeks.
http://kristopolous.blogspot.no/2011/11/acid3-of-js-has-few-surprises.html
Obviously Microsoft is working very hard to become compliant. What exactly is it that you are complaining about?
personally I think TypeScript is just-another-Javascript
Why do you keep posting on a topic you haven't bothered to read up on?
Hence, I argue that Microsoft are wasting their time with TypeScript and should have spent effort making IE better
Why on earth would you argue that? Microsoft is clearly, and evidently to anyone with a clue, making IE better. IE9 was a huge step forward, and IE10 is even more so. I use Chrome my self, but for work I have to work with IE as well, and IE9 and 10 are really good browsers in their own right. Arguing that MS should drop TypeScript and work on IE instead is like saying Ford should stop making blue cars and work on better engines instead. The team that does TypeScript probably don't even know who the guys on the IE team is.
Incidentally, I noticed you were severely enraged and resorted to calling me an ass
I was not, I was just pointing out the obvious. People who comment on things based solely on ignorance and bigotry are asses, no matter how you look at it.
I have done my amount of web programming, for example, by doing Ajax, something Microsoft invented. Yes, IE6 is a broken piece of junk, but it is also an ancient piece of junk. At the time IE6 was released, every single browser "broke the web". There was no such thing as a standard way of doing anything.
If you said that the web as such was seriously broken back when IE6 was released, that would have been reasonably accurate. IE6 didn't do anything special to "break the web", but through inaction, Microsoft allowed IE6 to live significantly longer than it should have. The most likely reason for this was complacency. Yes, Microsoft made things hard by not upgrading IE6 as more modern technologies started permeating the competition, and it also did nothing as the rest of the world moved towards standards, but claiming they broke something in the years after 2001 with a product released in 2001 is absurd.
With IE5 and IE6 though, Microsoft made Ajax possible. How's that for breaking the web.
When you remove the TypeScript annotations what makes you think the remaining JavaScript will be useful
All of it. Next question.
when is IE (Internet Explorer) going to support WebGL, like every browser does?
When WebGL improves and becomes a little less like ActiveX. Microsoft got badly burned by ActiveX and learned that you should be very careful with such extensions. WebGL is a security nightmare. By design.
Probably the code that is remaining will lack something that the annotations gave
Now we know why the first syllable of assumption is "ass". If you had tried to read the article instead of being one, you would have looked a lot less like an idiot.
otherwise, what is the point of even having them?
Again, ass. Read the article, it answers your question and makes you look dumb in one nice package.
You cannot ignore the annotations if the majority of libraries you are attempting to use are 'tainted' with them
Yes, you can, and if you had bothered to read the article rather than going nuts at the word "Microsoft", you would have known that.
Once you start writing in TypeScript you are forever bound to Microsoft
Why don't you read the f#cking article before you go out and, frothing at the mouth, try to preach a gospel that is provably wrong? You guys are worse than mentally handicapped tea-baggers with an Intelligent Design agenda.
once upon-a-time they were the shizzle promoted by Microsoft and now people have to spend their time maintaining them with old and outdated tools
Which old and outdated tools? Visual Studio 2012?
Why in the hell can't Microsoft follow conventions and standards?
They are, they do. Why can't the religious nuts on /. learn how to read? Why do so many /.ers prefer their own religious dogma to observable fact? I mean, mention "Microsoft" in a sentence and these people go more nuts than the Intelligent Design maniacs.
Are you mentally handicapped or something? Did someone steal your reading glasses? Do you actually know how to read? TypeScript is not a language you run in a browser. It can't be extended to support Microsoft only technologies. It is just another way to write bog standard JavaScript. Is that so hard to understand? Yes, Microsoft can alter their version of JavaScript in IE12, in fact I assume they will, JS is a moving target at least until ECMA6. So what? How does that matter? Are you saying all versions of JavaScript in all browsers are the same? If so, you have never done JavaScript.
TypeScript is a compiler that emits JavaScript. TypeScript doesn't run in a browser. TypeScript can not be extended to be incompatible with other browsers since it doesn't run in a browser.
TypesScript can, on the other hand, be used to write JavaScript that is browser specific. Just as JavaScript can be used to write JavaScript that is browser specific.
I really wished the Microsoft hating religious nuts on /. would start reading more than the word "Microsoft" in articles before spouting the ignorant and rather idiotic nonsense on /.
Microsoft broke the web about a decade ago
What a load of rubbish. Seriously. Rubbish.
makes EVERYONE (except those on the payroll of Redmond) suspicious
No, just religious nutcases.
Public has entered the enlightened stage of not taking _anything_ from Microsoft - open or not
No, not "public". Just "close-minded religious nutcases with no ability to think on their own".
No, it's the lunatics at /. that are getting dumber. Every time they read "Microsoft" they go insane. It's sad really.
1/ The software is fully open source (Apache 2.0 licensed)
2/ It's not really possible to extend something when you are not extending it. RTDA.
Sadly the Microsoft hating morons are out in force on this one. Pity for them. This is actually a good way of improving the JavaScript experience without the possibility of embrace, extend, extinguish, as opposed to, for example Dart.
Sigh. You didn't read the article either. That is a pity, since it makes you look stupid. Here is a clue for you: MS is not adding this language to the browser. Again, for the slow among us: MS is NOT adding an update to Javascript to their browser. Nothing new is being added to the browser at all.
The new language is doing what Scott Hanselman hinted to some time back, it treats browser-neutral JavaScript as "assembly language". Compilers for better better languages compile their source to browser-neutral JavaScript. What is deployed is not a new language and not a new browser plugin. What is deployed is bog standard JavaScript.
You didn't read the article, did you?
You should read an article before commenting on it. Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are a moron than to open it and remove all doubt.
Modde troll is being nice. You clearly are unable to read, and clueless. Trolls at least need to have some clues.