Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | eezing's commentslogin

Addictive

reply


Aside from the following, JSDoc is absolutely TypeScript.

Discriminated unions, conditional types, mapped types, template literal types, recursive type aliases, higher-kinded type patterns, generic constraints with conditional inference, the infer keyword, never type exhaustiveness checking, const assertions, readonly tuple and array inference, exact object types, key remapping in mapped types, indexed access types, variance annotations, assertion signatures, strict null checking with flow-sensitive narrowing, definite assignment assertions, the satisfies operator, declaration merging, module augmentation, symbol-typed properties, type-safe enums

…and not written via comments


Yes, all of these are supported in JSDoc because they are supported in TypeScript. Because JSDoc is TypeScript. You can either define your types in JSDoc comments or in .ts files.

I really mean it. You can even use the @satisfies operator like so

  /** @satisfies {Type} */
Discriminated unions, conditional types, mapped types, template literal types, etc work exactly the same way if you define them in a JSDoc comment as if you define them in a .ts file


Sounds like Scala type fetishism all over again.


It looks AI won’t replace software engineers after all.


With AI, this is about to get a whole lot worse.


So don’t use Wikipedia then. Problem solved.


Have you actually tried to tag, edit, or leave comments when you come across questionable content?

I’ve found that the system works pretty well. It’s not perfect, but I can’t think of a better solution.


My favorite offenders are the CJS to ESM (only) conversions.


This is actually very nice, thanks for posting.

Not sure this will save you time and money, but it is very comprehensive.


It’s Salesforce v2. A ridiculously expensive proprietary “easy-to-build” application platform with an ecosystem of ridiculously expensive consultants.


Salesforce v2 is a pretty bull case for Palantir! This bias people have against against application platforms requiring a consultant ecosystem and per-customer installations is just not accurate - in software, as in the rest of the world, there are some areas where it's the right model to get things done efficiently. Walmart can't use an off-the-shelf CRM platform any more than US Steel could use an off-the-shelf furnace.


US steel very infamously did not do any R&D and stuck to outmoded technology.


Great way to promote yourself. Well done!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: