Comment by embedding-shape
1 month ago
> Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.
In the article, you know, linked in this submission, which my original comment quoted verbatim. Again:
> > Some of the benefits of TypeScript:
> > Access to ES6 and ES7 features
I'm saying that these are not "benefits of TypeScript" but benefits of doing transpiling in general with a tool that can "downcast" features like that, which is in no way exclusive to TypeScript nor even began with TypeScript, but AFAIK with Browserify.
When I talk about "benefits of language X" I try to keep it to things that are actually about the language, not particular implementation details also broadly available and used by others, because I feel like it'd be misleading.
Ok. I think you're misunderstanding that word as it was used. It's not the way I, and other responders, think the author intended it. They did not say 'exclusive benefit'.
A benefit of living in a house is that you don't get wet when it rains. If you didn't live in a house, you might get wet when it rained. But there are other things you could also do to not get wet, such as living in a tent.
It would not be reasonable to say "that's not a benefit of living in a house, because if I lived in a tent, or wore a rain-coat, I would not get wet".
The benefit of "staying dry" belongs to both "a house" and the superclass of "a sheltering structure".
If you defined benefits only on single dimensions, and only allowed them to belonging to level of abstraction at which they are exclusive, then you could argue that no language or technology has any benefit whatesover.
I think most people would think of "benefits of X" as an aggregation of individual specific benefits which may also belong to other aggregations.