notes VS proposal-type-annotations

Has anything changed recently? The proposal has been in stage 3 since November 2022 [1]

[1] https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/HEAD/meetings/2022-11/nov...

If you're curious about the naming scheme (it now goes 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 2.7 -> 3 -> 4), then you can read the discussion surrounding the name from the last meeting notes [1].

Also, for a quicker digest, Rob Palmer (from the committee) tweeted about it [2]

[1] https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/main/meetings/2023-11/nov...

Dialog for this update is at https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/main/meetings/2023-03/mar...

What I would like is a "use: 'typechecked'" at the top of the file indicating that the code has already been checked. This would be accompanied by a new proprosal that defines a standard for what is considered checked (for example checking nullablity in the types) and would allow for browsers to make some optimizations. This could also perhaps reduce the amount of necessary runtime checks such that it would be possible to make it a fully sound typesystem with most of the checks done beforehand.

All the meeting notes are recorded here: https://github.com/tc39/notes/tree/main/meetings. You’ll have to do a bit of spelunking in the corresponding agendas and proposal repo to narrow down the exact meetings you’re interested in.

Here's a list of delegates for TC39, but it doesn't list people by their ECMA member organization.

This is a good question. I'm not sure I saw the notes of the meeting when this happened, but all the notes are public here: https://github.com/tc39/notes/tree/master/meetings

TC-39 is a group of people who are responsible for the standards. They have meetings every two months with member-appointed delegates and invited experts. You can check the minutes of those meetings here GitHub repository

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)