Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by goes_to_11 4457 days ago
> they don't have a good story around versioning different libraries. Last I checked, they had a typescript wrapper for jQuery, based on the latest version. Sticking with an older version? No accurate type definitions for you!

Nobody forces you to stay up-to-date with the DefinitelyTyped repository. If you want definitions for version X, look at the definitions that were recent shortly after version X was released. Not completely effortless, but also not a structural, deal-breaking problem like you said.

2 comments

It's not just about staying at a particular version. It is about being able to find the version that matches what you are using. I recently started an new project using bootstrap and had to downgrade to v3.0.3 due to some incompatibilities. I have no idea how I would go about finding the matching type definitions from definitely typed. Their version numbers don't match bootstrap's (http://www.nuget.org/packages/bootstrap.TypeScript.Definitel...).

Also, how will the Definitely Type project be able to handle a fix to the definitions of an old version that doesn't apply to the current version?

Like jstclair I appreciate their hard work, but I think they really need to change their approach soon to avoid a lot of pain down the road.

There is a project that converts Typescript to Closure type annotations. If you do this, and put Closure Compiler in your continuous build/test phase, it will can catch when there is a mismatch between the caller and the library, not in all cases, but it helps.
Well sure but compare that workflow with almost any other package manager. NuGet, for instance:

install-package jQuery --version 2.0

We haven't had major problems with DT, but I see that over time this is crying out for a fix