d2-playground VS proposal-type-annotations

https://play.d2lang.com/?script=qlDQtVOo5AIEAAD__w%3D%3D&ske...

I was going to ask why you don't have a web version but you already do. I'm going to play with this more today.

Have you thought about an "auto compile"/live mode where it changes as you edit the text? I think this adds a level of intuitiveness that would help new users explore.

Wow that's a very detailed catch, thanks for reporting! Made an issue: https://github.com/terrastruct/d2-playground/issues/33

A video can be a lot of work, it is quite challenging to produce a satisfying result. Instead, I suggest you to draw (here is a nice online tool to do that. If you prefer plain text, you can use d2) a Flowchart to represent your workflow. For someone who wants to understand a use case, it will be much quicker to look at a diagram rather than read or watch a video. And it will be easier for you to produce it.

We'll have our own API available for you to do this too. So you can make something on playground (https://play.d2lang.com) and then render the same way. E.g. https://github.com/alixander/test-render/blob/main/README.md

if you're talking about the playground, I did the initial version in a weekend or so (https://github.com/terrastruct/d2-playground), which includes building a WASM version of D2 (written in Go), putting a text editor, some UI stuff like dropdowns/menu, hooking it up together, layouts and responsiveness whatnot.

If you're talking about D2 language itself, ~2 devs over 3/4 of a year.

You can give it a spin to see if it's a fit for you here: https://play.d2lang.com

That proposal is not fully compatible with Typescript: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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)