closure-compiler VS Killed by Google

The most well-known tools that rely on JSDoc are Closure Compiler (not to be confused with the Closure programming language) and TypeScript. Both of these tools can help make your JavaScript typed, but they approach it differently. Closure Compiler primarily focuses on enhancing your .js files by adding typing through JSDoc annotations (after all, they are just comments), while TypeScript is designed for .ts files, introducing its own well-known TypeScript constructs such as type, interface, enum, namespace, and so on.

Closure Compiler follows the same line of thinking:

https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/wiki/FAQ#closure-...

I think only Google Closure Compiler did some optimizations based on its JSDoc-style annotations (see docs). If I remember correctly, types mostly allowed renaming objects' properties across modules, but most other advanced optimizations (like dead code elimination or functions inlining) didn't rely on types. In my experience properties renaming resulted in subtle, hard to discover bugs and I'd say they didn't bring much benefit.

The @template tag is supported by Google Closure Compiler

i'm not sure you want them to write back https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/pull/3958

time to fork

I just came across the Google Closure Compiler. As the documentation says, it does not create machine code, but rather, "compiles JavaScript to better JavaScript".

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Their reputation is deserved. Google domains was killed only last year!

And this isn't even the first time I've been burned by Google's decisions. If you're familiar at all with the Google Graveyard, you'll know that Google has a long history of killing off products and services that people have come to rely on. This has happened to me a number of times, in both a personal and professional capacity, and frankly it's getting old.

Just because Google has a couple of decent services that you're willing to pay for doesn't detract from the fact that most of their products have a worse life expectancy than a victorian child in the 1800s. https://killedbygoogle.com

They ruined every single opportunity to be more than an advertising company since Orkut. With scrapped attempts, starts and lack of intention for most of the 2010s to even during the early half of the Pixel Era, they seemingly haven't learnt to stick to something and iterate on it well.

And the fact that over 50% of their revenues come from search and by extension, advertising.

The fact' that til this day, they still haven't evolved from the "throwing shit at the wall then at the fan" strat which explains how they have fumbled so much so quickly.

Yeah. The Google Graveyard really shows how far this can go.

https://killedbygoogle.com

The punchline is that in addition to hundreds of failed hobby projects, their stock is doing great. Monopoly power is a helluva drug.

To me Gemini is just sort of generic and uninteresting. There has to be hundreds or thousands of products and companies based on the name "Gemini" - "Bard" was at least interesting, different and distinct.

I've no idea about the quality of the product itself, I have never had a reason to use it. It's long past cliché now but I wouldn't get too attached to a Google product that is definitely costing a lot of money but which has no clear pathway to turning a profit. I think they will keep it ticking over until the hype train moves on from Chatbots/LLMs, and then it'll join the Google Graveyard @ https://killedbygoogle.com

We're not talking about reliability, we're talking about Google's penchant for killing established products that people use. https://killedbygoogle.com

The website you're referring to: https://killedbygoogle.com/