HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
kegsay
flow-jsdoc
JavaScript2017–2017
kegsay / flow-jsdoc

flow-jsdoc

Use JSDoc to represent Flow annotations

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
228GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Use JSDoc to represent Flow annotations

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-02-22 23:19:29 UTC to 2017-07-01 12:28:55 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 202017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsApr 242017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJun 26

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 202017-02-20 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 272017-02-27 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 62017-03-06 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 132017-03-13 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 202017-03-20 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 272017-03-27 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 32017-04-03 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 102017-04-10 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 172017-04-17 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 242017-04-24 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 12017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-08 00:00:00 UTC000
May 82017-05-08 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-15 00:00:00 UTC000
May 152017-05-15 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-22 00:00:00 UTC000
May 222017-05-22 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-29 00:00:00 UTC000
May 292017-05-29 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 52017-06-05 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 122017-06-12 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 192017-06-19 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 262017-06-26 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-03 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
Between Flow and Typescript, looks like the latter has all the momentum. But I see one way in which Flow could become relevant again: by becoming 100% compatible with plain JS. I would love to have type checking, but I'm weary of solutions that aren't really JS, and could fall out of favor or lack good support in the future. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. But Flow type annotations don't really need an incompatible syntax AFAIK; they could just use comments. This way, we wouldn't need to worry about the future of Flow. If the projects dies off or becomes redundant, we're just left with some useful comments - no need to rewrite or transpile our code to native JS. PS I found an existing project which does this [1], but it requires an additional step and it isn't officially supported. It looks incredibly easy to make Flow work directly
Read the rest
with pure JS with comments... [1] https://github.com/Kegsay/flow-jsdoc
In Why We Chose Typescript

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.