esno VS proposal-type-annotations

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)

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)