[KingOfCoders]

In my CTO newsletter I recently wrote about TS vs Go releases, with Go 1.22 as an example. TS gets more and more complicated with each release, catering to the power users. Go adds things that makes it simpler to use, like the (missing) range over integers. It's like game sequels, they add more and more canon and game mechanics, then game sequels (or comics) need to reset to make them more accessible to newcomers again. Programming languages can't do this, so I'm happy that Go keeps this in mind.

[simiones]

All languages that keep evolving get more complex over time. The changes are always intended to make programs written in the language simpler.

Go moves at a pretty slow pace, adding only minor new features (and thus minor complications) in most releases. Even in 1.22, they are previewing a new feature, range-over-functions, which seem to be basically C#/Python's iterator functions - a feature which will, of course, complicate the language - but make certain programs simpler.

As a general rule, the more features a language has, the shorter program that implements a particular algorithm can be, but the harder it is to learn, and the bigger the chance that it will be misunderstood. There are exceptions where certain features make languages more verbose (e.g. access modifiers), but typically only in minor ways.

[KingOfCoders]

"range-over-functions"

Yes, something people coming to Go would have assumed worked before looking at all range cases, but didn't.

[simiones]

range-over-functions is the experimental new feature where a function can generate a sequence by executing a bit at a time, i.e.

  s := []string{"hello", "world"}
  for i, x := range slices.Backward(s) {
    fmt.Println(i, x)
  }

  func Backward[E any](s []E) func(func(int, E) bool) {
    return func(yield func(int, E) bool) {
        for i := len(s)-1; i >= 0; i-- {
            if !yield(i, s[i]) {
                return
            }
        }
    }
  }

I don't think anyone expects this to work in Go as it is today, it's just a new feature that will make the language more complex, but it will make certain kinds of programs simpler to write.

I should also note that the official name is "range-over-function iterators", I called it by a wrong name earlier.

[KingOfCoders]

Yes might depend on where you come from. As someone with decades of Java experience - not a fancy language over most of its lifecycle - I was mystified why there is no Iterator support as in Java for loops.

[simiones]

Oh, now I understand what you mean - you're thinking of this as a way to do `for (T x : collection)` in Java.

I see this as more like the `yield return` functions of C#, which I definitely wasn't expecting. That can of course also be used to implement an iterator for a collection, but it seems much more general.

Given that before generics Go had exactly 3 types of collections, and that those were all iterable with range, I guess I never thought about this thing missing from the for loop.

[KingOfCoders]

Iterator is not only about collections. Its not as powerful as a yield around continuations but you can return whatever you like.

~15 (?) years ago I wrote a "famous" blog post on how to use Iterator as a poor man Maybe/Option.

   for (String s: m Option<String>) {
     // Executed on Some
   }

[EE84M3i]

An idomatic way to do this now is to start a goroutine and range over a channel it writes to. Less ergonomic and more error prone, but it works.

[pjmlp]

The thing with Typescript is that it is only a fancy JavaScript linter, so the only way to justify newer releases is to keep adding up the type system, there is nothing else when language features that aren't type system related are supposed to come from JavaScript evolution.

So they either say they are done, or keep adding type theory stuff until it implodes, I fear.

Actually I am looking forward to type annotations in JavaScript now in the roadmap, being good enough for general use cases.

[WA]

Is there a more simple JS linter that does 90% of what basic TypeScript does? I mostly use simple types (basic times, Promises, arrays, and a bunch of interfaces) and I find TypeScript valuable for that. It saved me a few times from accidentally treating a Promise<Whatever> as Whatever for example – and other things.

But I heard an interesting argument: It's not TypeScript vs. vanilla JS; it is TypeScript vs. whatever else full-blown linting/IDE comfort you can get by still writing vanilla JS with no transpile step.

[pjmlp]

I guess the recent movement started by some projects to go back to JSDoc type annotations kind of answers that.

[norman784]

Do you know if the Javascript type annotations is progressing? I didn't hear anything after the initial proposal.

[frankjr]

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

[miningape]

I don't have the source at hand but I remember seeing that they wouldn't support it until it had progressed as a JavaScript proposal. Their reasoning was that the decorations API is really weak, and it will likely be changed meaning a complete rewrite of the TypeScript decorator implementations.

[ken47]

Yes, but TS users can stay on the "type-newbie" path, which is still a huge improvement over vanilla JS and doesn't take much effort. What I've had issues with is devs who came from the vanilla JS world and love it, so they go out of their way to avoid utilizing more complex types when they would add no-cost safety (aside from the initial minutes or hour spent learning the feature).

[Cthulhu_]

And that's dangerous; give people a lot of advanced options and they will inadvertedly use them, and nobody will dare to touch it, and it'll cause a lot of headaches, etc etc etc. Scala made this mistake as well. Go is the antithesis to TS and Scala, and I hope they keep it up.

I also hope but doubt that they will do something few other languages dare: remove features.

[ken47]

Go certainly has a very different philosophy, but I don't think it's necessarily superior. Typescript is not as academic as Scala, but it gives power to developers who are willing to put in the effort to learn. With that power comes greater efficiencies and type safety.

[jhanschoo]

> TS gets more and more complicated with each release, catering to the power users.

My understanding about the use of advanced/more expressive TR features is that it's OK if you don't use them, and don't bother wasting time for most products. Bot if you are writing a library of framework in TS, go ahead especially since they are meant to improve the experience of consumers.

[crowdyriver]

every feature that makes a language more complicated will eventually hit you. It might make the typescript compiler slower, harder to refactor, your lsp might also get slower, etc...

[KingOfCoders]

One person on the team will use them, if you don't put up a linter that prevents usage.

[falsandtru]

They just keep adding new features for fear of losing their position because they can't decorate the release notes. MS doesn't give high marks for bug fixes. Thus the bugs keep growing.