proposal-type-annotations
compression-dictionary-transport | proposal-type-annotations | |
---|---|---|
7 | 101 | |
90 | 4,097 | |
- | 0.7% | |
5.2 | 4.7 | |
2 months ago | about 2 months ago | |
JavaScript | ||
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | - |
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.
compression-dictionary-transport
-
Compression efficiency with shared dictionaries in Chrome
> Dictionary entries (or at least the metadata) should be cleared any time cookies are cleared.
So it seems it should not get you anything you cannot already do with cookies.
https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport?tab...
-
Chrome feature: Compression dictionary transport with Shared Brotli
Talked about here:
https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport
- Compression Dictionary Transport
-
Improving compression with a preset DEFLATE dictionary (2015)
There's a spec up for custom dictionary support across the web. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport
This was one of the major blockers that iirc Mozilla threw in the way of zstd compression support: they said zstd with a standardly accepted dictionary would be too particular & wanted more. With this spec maybe Moz will accept zstd as a web compression standard.
-
JavaScript import maps are now supported cross-browser
Here here. Today, bundlers may get you to first page load faster. But if a user comes back and you've shipped two small fixes, all those extra wins you get from compressing a bunch files at once fly out the window & you're deep in the red. If you have users that return to your site, and your site is actively developed, bundling is probably a bad tradeoff.
We see similar fixedness in the field all over the place: people freaking love small Docker image sizes & will spend forever making it smaller. But my gosh the number of engineers I've seen fixate on total download size for an image, & ignore everything else, is vast. Same story, but server side: my interest is in the download size for what v1.0.1 of the Docker container looks like once we already have v1.0.0 already shipped. Once we start to consider what the ongoing experience is, rather than just the first time easy-to-judge metric, the pictures all look very different.
Then there's the other thing. The performance reasons for bundling are being eaten away. Preload & Early Hints are both here today & both offer really good tools to greatly streamline asset loading & claw back a lot of turf, and work hand-in-glove with import-maps. The remaining thing everyone points out is that a large bundle compresses better (but again at the cost of making incremental updates bad). The spec is in progress, but compression-dictionary-transport could potentially obliterate that advantage, either make it a non-factor, or perhaps even a disadvantage for large bundles (as one could use a set of dictionaries & go discover which of your handful of dictionaries best compress the code). These dictionaries would again be first-load hit, but could then be used again and again by users, to great effect again for incremental changes. https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport
Bundles are such an ugly stain on the web, such an awful hack that betrays the web's better resourceful nature. Thankfully we're finally making real strides against this opaque awful blob we've foisted upon this world. And we can start to undo not just the ugliness, but the terrible performance pains we've created by bundling so much togther.
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?
download-esm - Download ESM modules from npm and jsdelivr
astexplorer - A web tool to explore the ASTs generated by various parsers.
quickjspp
Scala.js - Scala.js, the Scala to JavaScript compiler
sciter-js-sdk
rescript-compiler - The compiler for ReScript.
import-maps - How to control the behavior of JavaScript imports
Carp - A statically typed lisp, without a GC, for real-time applications.
webappsec-subresource-integrity - WebAppSec Subresource Integrity
d2-playground - An online runner to play, learn, and create with D2, the modern diagram scripting language that turns text to diagrams.
simpatico - Simpatico is an umbrella term for several data-structures and algorithms written in JavaScript
proposal-record-tuple - ECMAScript proposal for the Record and Tuple value types. | Stage 2: it will change!