proposal-type-annotations VS proposal-record-tuple

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)

relevant issue, which is at the crux of this problem: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/387

There are still so many basic things that aren't in the JS stdlib, though. A good example is Map - if you need to use a tuple of two values as a key, you're SOL because there's no way to customize key comparisons. Hopefully we'll get https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/ eventually, but meanwhile languages ranging from C++ to Java to Python have had some sensible way to do this for over 20 years now.

If you’re reaching for structuredClone, what you really want is native immutable Record and Tuple syntax, and the companion “deep path properties” syntax which allows for efficient and ergonomic immutable updates:

- https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple

It will be called "record" in JavaScript which will swing the popularity back the other way I guess (currently a language proposal)

I suspect considering the strong desire to maintain consistency with JavaScript, we will eventually see something that when the Record proposal passes through tc39

I hope the Record and Tuple proposal makes it through

I mean, I'd love some real immutable/persistent data structures in JS by default, or even some Immer-like syntax sugar. Something like the record/tuple proposal would be awesome.

This will become very useful once Records and Tuples are a thing, because it allows you to store object references in a record/tuple (which by definition can only contain primitives).

Record and tuple is at stage 2

Also, js has an ongoing immutable value data types proposal.