TheCee

That guys' as well.

Just try, what is the worst that could happen? Hehe-- [sound of breaking bones and rupturing organs]

On second though, it doesn't seem like a big improvement. Reminds me a bit of limbfeeders without limbs.

This, it would be less deep in the uncanny valley without eyes at all.

What about square screens?

inb4 chaotic neckpain

but I could see it being a good step forward for more meaningful features to be added in the future.

I think you are right. And that is unfortunate.

Yes. While its breadth is amazing, the devs seem to keep changing everything which keeps me from exploring anything.

Yeah, total waste of time.

goes back to playing DCSS

My bad, I'm not deep enough into our frontend stack to realize Hjeilsberg already did what he does best - ruining enums. (I guess he is not to blame for global imports in c#, so i can not add 'questionable import module/namespace ideas'.)

And it seems like this proposal contains type declarations (in order to compensate for their enums), among other typescript specific things. So, guess it is option B, then.

That's not a positive, though.

Depending on how it pans out, it's either not useful enough. Who the hell doesn't use namespaces or enums. Or - as

These constructs are not in the scope of this proposal, but could be added by separate TC39 proposals.

implies - a door opener to outsource TypeScripts problem unto other peoples and not to investing into improving WebAssembly. That's just MS being lazy and making their problems other peoples problems.

I feel like this would be the ideal scenario: things working right out of the box without needing a compile step or additional tooling.

It's just annotations. No proposed semantics of a type system which your browser could check on its own.

That for sure looks fancy. Well, if I could draw to save my life, I'd definitely include it.