esno VS closure-compiler

Love this project, used it quite a bit. However I always opt for using esno[1] instead, merely because of the name; having two tools share the same name throws me off.

[1] https://github.com/esbuild-kit/esno

Next, I thought well nx is not gonna work for now, so let's keep looking for an alternative to ts-node. Oh look, there is this https://github.com/esbuild-kit/tsx. It natively understands path aliases, no need for any flags. Oh wait...it doesn't do any type checking like ts-node. WHAT? why would anyone execute typescript without type checks during development?.

I’ve generally found tsx to be better/less hassle than ts-node

https://github.com/esbuild-kit/tsx

For just running Typescript files you have (both for dev and prod) https://github.com/esbuild-kit/tsx with command is generally easier then using ts-node + some file watcher or compiling to js

Just use tsx: https://github.com/esbuild-kit/tsx

I've been using tsx, which is like ts-node except it uses esbuild under the hood. It's been pretty great. Super speedy.

And compared to esno?

Typescript with TSX for development

Take a look at Typescript runners like ts-node or esno (https://github.com/antfu/esno)

Well, the nice thing with Python types is that the _only_ difference to untyped Python is the type annotations. Last time I worked with TypeScript (two and a half years ago), it felt more like a different language _similar_ to JS. In my experience it was quite... viral. With MyPy I've genuinely seen just specific parts of a code base become typed and didn't notice any friction.

I wonder what would happen if that proposal for type comments in JS went through. Would TypeScript become just a type checker / optimizing compiler?

Google's Closure had an (IMHO) nicer approach (https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/wiki/Types-in-the...), but I don't get the impression it'll ever catch on outside 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