[chrisldgk]

I think the point is that you can write your code using ES6 and ES7 and the TypeScript compiler allows you to output ES6 or ES5 compatible code if you want to make sure it runs in older browsers as well. You can do that with non-TypeScript ES code as well but you’re bound to use another transpiler. With TypeScript you get it „for free“ since you need to compile your code either way.

[embedding-shape]

Ah yeah, kind of like how I get a drink for free if I get the hamburger menu, even if it costs more? Kind of weird perspective, but I can accept that it's something zealots tell themselves so "we're doing it differently" actually computes for them.

[troad]

> it's something zealots tell themselves

Don't be like this. Don't spit bile at people because they have different needs and preferences to you.

As I understand it, the TS compiler can translate newer JS features/syntax into backwards-compatible polyfills for you, automatically. I don't really use TS myself, but I'm not going to pretend like that isn't a useful feature.

[embedding-shape]

I have used JS before TS entered the scene, and being able to transpile features/syntax like that is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS. That's why flagging that as something "you get for free, since you added a compiler anyways" feels dishonest. Ultimately it's true, but if that's what you're out after, then adding TS to your project is going way above and beyond just "transpiling new syntax to old syntax".

[afandian]

> is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS

> since I avoid TS, I cannot use ES6 and ES7, and my vanilla JavaScript doesn't run in all browsers

Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.

You seem to be saying that the TS docs say that these features are unique. They obviously aren't, the documentation is clearly not saying they are, and no reasonable person would say they were.

Transpiling to another platform is a multiplying benefit when combined with other benefits though.

For example: Clojure and Kotlin both target the JVM. The language design of each brings certain benefits. These benefits are clearly more useful if they have a wide deployment base in the form of the JVM.

[embedding-shape]

> Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.

In the article, you know, linked in this submission, which my original comment quoted verbatim. Again:

> > Some of the benefits of TypeScript:

> > Access to ES6 and ES7 features

I'm saying that these are not "benefits of TypeScript" but benefits of doing transpiling in general with a tool that can "downcast" features like that, which is in no way exclusive to TypeScript nor even began with TypeScript, but AFAIK with Browserify.

When I talk about "benefits of language X" I try to keep it to things that are actually about the language, not particular implementation details also broadly available and used by others, because I feel like it'd be misleading.

[afandian]

Ok. I think you're misunderstanding that word as it was used. It's not the way I, and other responders, think the author intended it. They did not say 'exclusive benefit'.

A benefit of living in a house is that you don't get wet when it rains. If you didn't live in a house, you might get wet when it rained. But there are other things you could also do to not get wet, such as living in a tent.

It would not be reasonable to say "that's not a benefit of living in a house, because if I lived in a tent, or wore a rain-coat, I would not get wet".

The benefit of "staying dry" belongs to both "a house" and the superclass of "a sheltering structure".

If you defined benefits only on single dimensions, and only allowed them to belonging to level of abstraction at which they are exclusive, then you could argue that no language or technology has any benefit whatesover.

I think most people would think of "benefits of X" as an aggregation of individual specific benefits which may also belong to other aggregations.

[troad]

> I have used JS before TS entered the scene, and being able to transpile features/syntax like that is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS.

I used JS back in the 1990s. Transpiling to JS is a relatively new phenomenon.

No one said transpiling is a TS innovation, nor that it is unique to TS.

> That's why flagging that as something "you get for free, since you added a compiler anyways" feels dishonest. Ultimately it's true, but if that's what you're out after, then adding TS to your project is going way above and beyond just "transpiling new syntax to old syntax".

That's silly. Transpiling is something TS can do, so it's not dishonest to advertise it as something TS can do. If you think TS is too hefty, don't use it. But don't be toxic towards those that do.

You're moving the goalposts to try and defend a bad take. That's how you get brownie points on the Internet for extreme takes, but also how you prevent yourself from learning and growing in the long run. Learn to take an L. You'll be better for it.