proposal-import-attributes
proposal-type-annotations
proposal-import-attributes | proposal-type-annotations | |
---|---|---|
9 | 101 | |
555 | 4,115 | |
2.0% | 0.4% | |
5.9 | 4.7 | |
5 months ago | 3 months ago | |
HTML | JavaScript | |
Apache License 2.0 | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
proposal-import-attributes
-
The long path of JavaScript - from ES6 until today.
The proposal for import attributes aims to improve the import statement in JavaScript by allowing developers to assert certain conditions about the imported module. This can help catch errors at compile-time instead of runtime and make the code more robust. Currently this proposal is in Stage 3.
-
Power of Partial Prerendering with Bun
Bun introduces the idea of Macros into JavaScript. Macros are a new paradigm that allows optimizations ahead of time just by adding an import attribute.
-
How to use import attributes in TypeScript and JavaScript
TypeScript v5.3 builds on its JavaScript foundation by adding import attributes with the usual type safety and tooling benefits inherent to the language. You can follow the TypeScript proposal for import attributes on GitHub.
-
CSS Modules Still a Thing?
Yup, in vanilla that's fine, but I'm not sure whether bundlers etc are able to understand import assertions yet, as the spec is still being finalised - for example: the 'assert' keyword has now been officially changed to 'with', but only 'assert' is implemented anywhere at the moment.
-
If Web Components are so great, why am I not using them?
Things like HTML (and JSON) imports in ES modules, among other things, have been waiting on some safety signalling mechanics currently named "Import Attributes". Import Attributes are currently in Stage 3 [0].
The basic security story is that browsers never care about file extensions, they care about MIME types. A developer might add an import to a third-party HTML or JSON file somewhere and expect one "safe" behavior, but the third-party could just return a MIME type of "text/javascript" and inject an entire script and the browser is supposed to respect that MIME type.
To keep things safe, browsers want a way to signal that an import is supposed to JSON (or HTML or CSS) rather than JS and error if it gets back something "wrong" from a server request. That's one of the proposed uses for Import Attributes to suggest expected MIME types for non-JS modules in ES module imports.
Unfortunately, there are other proposed uses for Import Attributes (things like including hashes for integrity checks) and so there have been quite a few revisions (and multiple names) for Import Attributes trying to best support as many of the proposed uses as possible, and that has slowed progress on it a lot more than some people would wish.
[0] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-import-attributes
-
[Showoff Saturday] Replacing Abandoned Dependencies
This was an idea that I came up with when thinking about how to handle import styles from './styles.css' with { type: 'css' } in @shgysk8zer0/rollup-import. Import assertions / import attributes are now back to stage 3, but only JSON is actually progressing. So I decided to wait until there's a stable spec.
- Rails Frontend Bundling - Which one should I choose?
-
The Cost of Convenience
None of these examples will actually work in a browser, because they are non-standard. Some of you might have correctly spotted that a browser standard exists for two of the imports pointed out in the example, namely the Import Attributes proposal (previously known as Import Assertions), but these imports in their current shape will not work natively in a browser. Many of these non-standard imports exist for good reason; they are very convenient.
-
Updates from the 95th TC39 meeting
import attribute: Import Assertions re-adanced to Stage-3. Proposal for syntax to import ES modules with assertions
proposal-type-annotations
-
Bun 1.1
That proposal is not fully compatible with Typescript: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...
-
Go 1.22 Release Notes
They held a meeting a few months ago so it's alive but probably still years away.
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations/issues/184
-
[AskJS] Kicking a dead horse - TS vs JS
I particularly like this thread in the TC39 types proposal. TypeScript IS a development trojan horse and locks you into the Microsoft Way of being a JS developer.
- Strong static typing, a hill I'm willing to die on...
-
HTML First – Six principles for building simple, maintainable, web software
Edit: There is a proposal to extend JavaScript with type annotations, which would allow ("a reasonably large subset") of TypeScript to run directly in the browser. Yay!
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations
-
Building React Components Using Unions in TypeScript
More importantly, TypeScript typically commits to build things into itself when the proposal in JavaScript reaches Stage 3. The pattern matching proposal in JavaScript is Stage 1, but depends on many other proposals as well that may or may not need to be at Stage 3 as well for it to work. This particular proposal is interested on pattern matching on JavaScript Objects and other primitives, just like Python does with it’s native primitives. These are also dynamic types which helps in some areas, but makes it harder than others. Additionally, the JavaScript type annotations proposal needs to possibly account for this. So it’s going to be awhile. Like many years.
-
Show HN: Conway's Game of Life in TypeScript's type system
this is exactly what I want from the _Types as Comments_ proposal[0] as I think it's the only way that types can feasibly become part of the language. It's hard to imagine how all of the concepts TS introduces via special syntax can be covered otherwise.
[0] https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations
-
Why Htmx Does Not Have a Build Step
Crossing my fingers that the proposal for allowing (browser-ignored) type annotations in javascript progresses: https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/
Between that, HTTP2/3 and ES modules many of the downsides for building apps with no compile step are almost completely mitigated.
-
TypeScript Without Transpilation
JSDoc can get you pretty far, but it can be clumsy sometimes. There’s a [TC39 proposal](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations) to allow types to live in JS code and be treated as comments (similar with Python types today)
- Do you think typescript will ever have native support on brosers? Or we will have only the JS type annotations?
What are some alternatives?
proposal-class-method-parameter-decorators - Decorators for ECMAScript class method and constructor parameters
rescript-compiler - The compiler for ReScript.
unpkg - The CDN for everything on npm
Scala.js - Scala.js, the Scala to JavaScript compiler
proposal-float16array - a proposal to add float16 TypedArrays to JavaScript
d2-playground - An online runner to play, learn, and create with D2, the modern diagram scripting language that turns text to diagrams.
proposal-await-dictionary - A proposal to add Promise.ownProperties(), Promise.fromEntries() to ECMAScript
astexplorer - A web tool to explore the ASTs generated by various parsers.
uibuilder - Typed HTML templates using TypeScript's TSX files
Carp - A statically typed lisp, without a GC, for real-time applications.
custom-elements - Using custom elements
proposal-record-tuple - ECMAScript proposal for the Record and Tuple value types. | Stage 2: it will change!