jsx VS TypeScript

Svelte syntax? Yes, there is upcoming initiative JSX 2.0 which includes shorthands like that. However, have no idea whether it will be released any time soon. So let's say "this is part of React/JSX 1.0" (shrugging)

Inherent support for JSX in the language itself

JavaScript ＋ HTML（DOM）＝　JSX

FWIW, the className prop is a React thing not a JSX thing. Other libraries which use JSX will happily accept a plain class prop. The React limitation is abstraction leakage: props are not attributes, they map to DOM properties.

But to the point that JSX is a DSL, that limitation is specifically because React itself is very tightly coupled to DOM semantics… but JSX explicitly has no built in semantics[1].

1: First sentence of https://facebook.github.io/jsx/ - “JSX is an XML-like syntax extension to ECMAScript without any defined semantics.”

JSX stands for 'JavaScript XML' and is a syntax extension for JavaScript. It is used to create DOM elements that are then rendered in the React DOM. Although it looks like HTML, it is actually an XML-like syntax specifically written for use in React. Interestingly, JSX is not valid JavaScript either. JSX needs to be compiled by a tool like Babel to be translated into regular JavaScript that a browser can understand. Put simply, JSX describes what the UI should look like, and React takes care of properly rendering it.

Alternatively, you can use JSX syntax (like with React), but then you need build-tools.

Note: For React component files (JSX) we'll use .tsx to maintain JSX support and for non React files we'll use the .ts file extension. However, if you want you could still use .ts file extension for React components without any problem.

I’m concerned that you’re falling into the same trap here with integrating your own variant of JSX, and mulling over adding more things like hyphens in unquoted object literal keys.

JSX is popular enough that it’s safe, ECMAScript isn’t going to break it, but your alterations to JSX are already significantly incompatible: you have being equivalent to JSX("input", {"class": "search"}, null), but the JSX everyone else is using has that equivalent to JSX(input.search, {}, null). I’m not certain if your JSX syntax is supposed to be able to be used with React code or anything else that uses JSX syntax, but if yes then it’ll be broken in a significant number of cases so that it’s worse than useless, and if no, well, it’s going to be misleading, and what if JSX did get merged into ECMAScript in some form? Then you’d be incompatible with ECMAScript again.

Same deal with hyphens in unquoted object literal keys: it’s not part of ECMAScript now, but just because it’d be a syntax error now doesn’t mean it always will be. Decorators in TypeScript are a good example of things going badly wrong even when an extremely popular project is involved.

I say: if you want to go JavaScript, go JavaScript, maaaaaybe plus standard JSX conforming with <https://facebook.github.io/jsx/>, and no further. Even if what you do is obviously superior, &c. &c. I’d apply the same reasoning on your fork of CSS: you introduced it for a good reason back then, but now it’s just friction, even if it’s a little better in a vacuum (and maybe it is in parts, maybe it isn’t in other parts).

Then it might be time for a pull request which identifies these parts as JSX.

Regular expressions are part of the language, so it's not so unreasonable that TypeScript should parse them and take their semantics into account. Indeed, TypeScript 5.5 will include [new support for syntax checking of regular expressions](https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/55600), and presumably they'll eventually be able to solve the problem the GP highlighted on top of those foundations.

Dedicated syntax for creating unique subsets of a type that denote a particular refinement is a longstanding ask[2] - and very useful, we've experimented with implementations.[3]

I don't think it has any relation to runtime type checking at all. It's refinement types, [4] or newtypes[5] depending on the details and how you shape it.

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/main/src/compil...

GitHub | Website

Learning Curve and Developer Tooling sCrypt is an embedded Domain Specific Language (eDSL) based on TypeScript. It is strictly a subset of TypeScript, so all sCrypt code is valid TypeScript. TypeScript is chosen as the host language because it provides an easy, familiar language (JavaScript), but with type safety. There’s an abundance of learning materials available for TypeScript and thus sCrypt, including online tutorials, courses, documentation, and community support. This makes it relatively easy for beginners to start learning. It also has a vast ecosystem with numerous libraries and frameworks (e.g., React, Angular, Vue) that can simplify development and integration with Web2 applications.

As a JavaScript or TypeScript developer, you might have come across the terms type and interface when working with complex data structures or defining custom types. While both serve similar purposes, they have distinct characteristics that influence when to use them. In this blog post, we'll delve into the differences between types and interfaces in TypeScript, providing examples to aid your understanding.

TypeScript helps you in many ways in the context of a JavaScript app. It makes it easier to consume interfaces of any type.

In this guide, we'll be extracting information from Amazon product pages using the power of TypeScript in combination with the Cheerio and Crawlee libraries. We'll explore how to retrieve and extract detailed product data such as titles, prices, image URLs, and more from Amazon's vast marketplace. We'll also discuss handling potential blocking issues that may arise during the scraping process.

TypeScript

Familiarity with TypeScript, React and Next.js