The committee is very cautious about taking public stances. The TC39 FAQ has disclaimers that answers are not endorsed by the committee, and it can still be difficult to get a PR merged. The clearest signals tend to be what can be inferred from proposal advancement.
Schrödinger's Border. The answer depends entirely on whether the observer is inside or outside of it.
Expressing type information in comments is one possibility. Another possibility is type syntax that is part of the language grammar, but type information would be erased, with no runtime checking; its semantics would live entirely in tooling, with no runtime meaning.
"The strong demand for ergonomic type annotation syntax has led to forks of JavaScript with custom syntax. This has introduced developer friction and means widely-used JS forks have trouble coordinating with TC39 and must risk syntax conflicts."
The only thing that TC39 has consensus on is exploring solutions to this problem:
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they would be easy.
maybe the real JavaScripts were the friends we made along the way
never forget
stage added between existing stages 2 and 3
math constant e was suggested
then 2.5 as a simple middle ground
then 2.9 because the new stage was substantively closer to 3 than 2
2.7 was suggested as a compromise, and with a nod toward the previous suggestion of e (which has a value of ~2.7)
🍾
@robpalmer.bsky.social is this inspiration or appropriation? 😆
hello, world
