Microsoft has released TypeScript 0.9

Last October, Microsoft released the initial version of TypeScript that was designed to enable applications to scale using JavaScript. As Microsoft works towards moving TypeScript out of preview and into a full release, they have hit milestone 0.9.

The release of 0.9 brings several new features including expanded language features and improved tooling in Visual Studio. Soma Somasegar penned a post that you can read in full here and he states that the new langue service has been rewritten and the result was a dramatic improvement to interactive performance.

Microsoft states that a key piece of the TypeScript ecosystem is the development as an open source project on CodePlex. Currently, there are hundreds of developers engaging in the project to help define the direction of the platform.

While Microsoft has not issued any specifics on when TypeScript will hit the 1.0 release, they are committed to making it fast and flexible tool that is shaped by user feedback. Knowing this, if you have any feedback about the platform, make sure to let Microsoft know as they are listening closer to the developers’ requests.

Source: Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Huawei chairman hints at Nokia acquisition, ditching Windows Phone [Update]

Next Story

Microsoft launches revamp of its MSDN forums

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Great!

I've been pondering whether to choose this or Dart for a forthcoming project in order to simplify project management and debugging. Although both support strong typing (Dart as an option rather than a requirement), I think Dart is still a little bit too experimental.

Dart could turn out awesome in the future though, as it's a "one package solution" with everything from HTML 5 features in the class library to a node.js equivalence (i.e. server-side js support), to web server development support to even an IDE, all in one. Very convenient.

However, TypeScript on the other hand excels at Javascript compatibility and how you can both smoothly transition into it, as well as making outside developers easily understand the code even if they haven't studied TypeScript and just know Javascript. It's really just a superset of Javascript after all. All Javascript code is also TypeScript code, although the reverse isn't true.

So I think TypeScript will become more popular than Dart (even if both is supported in all web browsers thanks to compiling to Javascript), at least in the near future.

Google is playing the long game here, a long game where I'm not sure they'll succeed. It will need to be so much better than TypeScript, or in the future ECMAScript. Even today, it struggles with gaining recognition, and that's with the classic old crappy Javascript.

It always makes me sad to see Hejlsberg working on this run-of-the-mill language rather than his gem C#. That said, I can understand that C# is now essentially mature and won't evolve as dramatically as it has for the past decade.

Isn't that what Hejlsberg did back in Delphi days? Bringing Pascal into a modern Windows-oriented language, then left for another adventure in Microsoft with J++, and later C#. I sure hope this guy stay developing yet another cool language

A decade ago
-Adobe : Hi everybody, i wish to propose some changes for the ECMA...
-Microsoft : NO!.
-Adobe : But..
-Microsoft :NO!, nobody wants that!, so shoo!, go away!.

A year Ago:
-Microsoft : Oh snap, Adobe was right!.

Brony said,
.....

but they're not changing the language, just creating a higher level, easier to manage framework that splats out ECMAScript that is compliant to the spec.....

Or do I know nothing of programming as well?

Brony said,
A decade ago
-Adobe : Hi everybody, i wish to propose some changes for the ECMA...
-Microsoft : NO!.
-Adobe : But..
-Microsoft :NO!, nobody wants that!, so shoo!, go away!.

A year Ago:
-Microsoft : Oh snap, Adobe was right!.

I am going to just point out that not only is this technically inaccurate, it is also missing the point and context of what Adobe and Microsoft were discussing.

Another complete waste of resources on crippled language nobody actually needs. Proper way would be to allow C# to run on client side (web browser) with restricted functionality and slowly kill syntax like VB.NET.

EJocys said,
Another complete waste of resources on crippled language nobody actually needs. Proper way would be to allow C# to run on client side (web browser) with restricted functionality and slowly kill syntax like VB.NET.

Except C# has absolutely nothing to do with client-side scripting.

At least now we now you have absolutely nothing to do with actual programming (helloworld doesn't count, sorry).

Yep, with 25 years of programming experience and 5 years using C# coding standards on my JavaScripts, I have absolutely nothing to do with actual programming .

I've wrote an article with code library which proves that JavaScript can look exactly like C#: http://www.codeproject.com/Art...ript-Class-Library-in-C-NET

All is needed is for browser developers to create compiler and allow to run C# code syntax in web browser client environment. Web browser client side could be controlled through extended WebBrowser class. Myriads of already created C# code would be ready to use in an instant. Benefits of one server/client language, shared server/client code and cost saving would be enormous. Just think for a moment and you will realise that this is the future.

EJocys said,
......

Being that C# and the CLI have been submitted to standards bodies and accepted years ago with no third party outside the mono project doing their on runtime implementation, I do not see C# in the browser as the future.

Creation of mono project is exactly what was needed to start C# integration into browsers. Now Microsoft has to map all JavaScript methods to C# methods and release function list as a standard. Then allow to run these C# functions inside IE Browser. Microsoft already done 90% of the job. With .NET they will gain huge advantage in performance and flexibility of the web browser. Rest developers will be forced to follow. Maintaining project with multiple programming languages and third party converters is doomed and wrong way to go. There is no reason for TypeScript even to exist if you could use pure C# for client and server side. You could simply share code for all business logic between client and server. Trillions of dollars could be saved on development costs. With current frequency of browser updates, JavaScript probably would be dead in less than 10 years. Comparing to modern language like C#, JavaScript looks like crippled abomination similar to VBScript. Creating extra tools to extend JavaScript's life is just beating the horse which will be dead anyway.

EJocys said,
Another complete waste of resources on crippled language nobody actually needs. Proper way would be to allow C# to run on client side (web browser) with restricted functionality and slowly kill syntax like VB.NET.

With Microsoft backlash when suggesting that HTML5 implementations should be consistent across browser started wars (dotted curved lines for example), trying to shove C# where it was not intended will not help, even though you are correct that it is more perception of differences than actual differences.

Microsoft is already absorbing HTML5 by offering it for development in an accelerated manner nobody else is considering, and is getting the chance to demonstrate extension of it and other existing standards to near native code or CLI performance levels. On Windows 8 HTML5 is essentially running at the same relative position to hardware as C# Windows 8 Apps, and is doing it at C# speeds with existing HTML5/CSS3/JS.

People hate Microsoft, so this limits their influence, even when they have a revolutionary idea. There are concepts through Microsoft development languages and even their OSes that are generations beyond what is even being notice by the vast majority of the world. Take some as powerful and relevant as preemptive GPU scheduling and the DMA/BUS GPU architecture model that is the basis of all GP-GPU operations/frameworks used today. Yet this is what Vista's WDM/WDDM put in place, and it was ignored then, and to this day people are still unaware why games run faster on Windows, the UI doesn't lag, or why the Xbox 360's GPU architecture based on the same model runs circles around the PS3's CPU/GPU that were technically faster on paper.

Sadly Microsoft's marketing still has damage to undo and until then, the best option or the best solutions won't get a chance or even be noticed when they do.

Imagine something as insane as WebGL if it was WebDX, and the blow back it would have gotten for its insecurity, yet because it wasn't Microsoft has been overly embraced to where Microsoft is finding a way to sandbox it in and keep it secure on Windows.

Look at the blow back on Typescript in this thread alone, imagine it had the 'unholy' C# moniker.

the days of me getting excited about a Microsoft release are long gone... it's more like what have they ruined this time!

Co-ords said,
the days of me getting excited about a Microsoft release are long gone... it's more like what have they ruined this time!
I'm wondering if you're even understanding what this is about.

I really do understand this is about, but I have been disappointed by Microsoft so often lately, that nothing they say or do excites me any more.

Why not put all that effort into replacing a crappy language like JavaScript with something capable? Rigging a bunch of garbage up like this is just prolonging the wound.

Because JScript has pretty much become the equivalent to ASM in terms of web browser scripting - not that anybody really likes this languageā€¦

And then the next person will complain that MS can't follow standards or trying to create another language that'll fragment the web. How long do think it'll take to replace JS? What makes TypeScript garbage when it's designed to make programming easier for app developers?

In theory thats the purpose of Dart, in practice I do not see any movement towards that in fact JS is gaining more and more momentum everyday.

Skwerl said,
Why not put all that effort into replacing a crappy language like JavaScript with something capable? Rigging a bunch of garbage up like this is just prolonging the wound.

People hate change...

Additionally there are times a recreation is needed and there times when the existing model can be extend. Even fully recreating JS, the benefit versus TypeScript wouldn't be worth the effort.

There are bad programming language models and frameworks and architectures that have trouble with extensibility, yet people seem to continue to be quiet about them, when a recreation of the technology is truly needed. (Linux, Android JVM, OSX Kernel, OSX Cocoa, JAVA, etc.)

If you really want progression of technology, go take on a few from that list, they are hitting hard ceilings with hardware and software complexity that is currently hurting the entire industry.


Good to see the web giants making more contributions to open standards. An area Microsoft have improved a lot on in recent times.

As I wrote in my longish comment here, I think Dart's trouble is that it's a whole new langauge, while TypeScript is basically the forthcoming version of Javascript (ECMAScript 6) today. So eventually, Javascript will become much like TypeScript.

And then that's what Dart will compete against. Something that's like TypeScript -- everywhere -- while Dart is barely anywhere. Yes, it compiles to Javascript so Dart apps will run anywhere, but who will care to even learn it when Javascript has evolved into what TypeScript is today? Chances are that JS will easily be good enough for most to not bother.

This is also what's so nice with TypeScript. It'll be much easier to transition from when the next JS version is gaining native browser support than going from some compiled autogenerated output from Dart. If you go Dart today, it's more of a definite decision you have to make.

I just started using it in my latest project - it's awesome. So much better than straight JavaScript - not only is my code easier to read, I've significantly cut down on the number of bugs, due to much improved Intellisense and compilation error checking.