proposal-type-annotations

There wouldn't be any benefit. It's not sound so it can't really be used to improve performance. There was a proposal to support TypeScript syntax, but ignore the actual types (this is basically how Python works). That would be kind of nice because you can skip the compilation step completely (less faff for small projects), but I don't think it went anywhere... or if it is it's getting there at a snail's pace: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

Because standardization is a political process that takes time and consensus to achieve? https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

While I broadly agree with your general point, in that engineering is making a set of trade-offs, I don't necessarily agree that ditching type-safety in the example contexts you posted is the appropriate trade-off.[1] I'll ditch type-safety in experimental/exploratory code; I'll use Lisp (or, more recently, Python) to test if something is a good idea. For anything that ships to production, I think a basic level of type enforcement is necessary, even if you don't want the whole type zoo. For your Javascript f/end context, I like the proposed TC39 approach (https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...). The typing is optional, does not break existing syntax and can still be used to enforce a basic level of type safety if the developer wants it. ---------------------------- [1] I upvoted you anyway. Your broader point is s

Sorry, I should have been clearer about which proposal I was talking about: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

Not really, at best it's a verbose and limited subset. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...

The sooner we get https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations, the better. Once we get it, there is still a solid decade before runtimes support it, and optimistically, still more 10 years minimum having to deal with an interpreted language that has acquired an unecessary build step. I absolutely hated when PHP switched from a phpDoc culture with static analysis (and IDE inconsistencies that would click-take you to stubs as well) to actual types. Not because I hate types, but because of the transition period. Once it's gone, it's such a relief to get rid of unecessary docblocks.

Native type annotations in ecmascript is a serious proposal that gained some traction for quite a while but seems to have fallen off https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

It's not a stupid question, but here is the TC39 proposal to add type declarations to JS: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

Not TS, but there are plans to allow something similar with special type annotation syntax. The runtimes still won't do anything with that extra info though, it'll get stripped just like comments. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

It's been stuck at stage 1 since early 2022 unfortunately. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

ECMAScript community is actually dipping their toes in the water of adding typing to the spec, and it's at Stage 1: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations. Now of course, this would only add type syntax to the language, not true processing: there's nothing in the spec about actually handling them. Still, it's a step in that direction, so I wouldn't say "very unlikely to ever happen" ... "still a long ways off (if ever)" would be more accurate.

Someday! https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

Direct link to the Stage 1 proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

For now. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

I've been wanting to make a no-build webapp using Mithril.js[1][2], with plain-JS type annotations that don't require build steps (TypeScript's JSDoc syntax [3], but I'm looking forward to the proposed type annotations[4]). With something like this, type-checking would still require running a command when using Node.js, but it's just an optional developer dependency since the code would still be just standard JavaScript. But in the end I've not done that because I figured it's more effort than it's worth, compared to just doing server-side rendering with other backend languages and just using JS where needed (not necessarily "raw" JS, I just mean it as in "not having a full-page component"). I'm just letting you know that there are definitely some people like me that would like if more JS tooling didn't require a build step or specific ru