09:59 <elliottcable> jfhbrook: already played with flow plenty

09:59 <elliottcable> jfhbrook: kinda wanted to hear the creator explain y it sucks and why they haven't fixed the super-fucking-obvious most-basic most-important goddamn thing

09:59 <elliottcable> joepie91___: true dat 🤣

10:01 <elliottcable> really liking Rust so far

11:16 <elliottcable> god I want Flow so bad

11:16 <elliottcable> I hate hate hate that I'm seriously considering TypeScript

14:40 <jfhbrook> you really thing that talk will go into that?

14:41 <jfhbrook> with a title like that it's gonna be "hey look how cool flow is why aren't you using flow"

14:41 <jfhbrook> it's gonna be fluff

17:47 <ljharb> elliottcable: don't use typescript

17:47 <jfhbrook> brb rewriting all my libs in typescript

17:47 <ljharb> flow is annotated JS, typescript is a square C# squeezed into a JS round hole

17:47 <ljharb> :-p

17:48 <jfhbrook> I've said this before, I don't like that ts requires stubs for everything, I like that ts tries to have interfaces but I suspect they don't really work with duck typing, which for javascript makes them kinda shitty

17:49 <ljharb> if we want interfaces in JS we need to add them to JS

17:49 <jfhbrook> so like, thinking about it, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to build a js lib for interfaces

17:50 <jfhbrook> well

17:50 <jfhbrook> the problem is that there's no type info on the functions

17:50 <jfhbrook> I guess it's not the worst problem, z.i doesn't solve this for instance

17:50 <jfhbrook> but you'd have an Interface object that specifies properties and methods

17:51 <jfhbrook> don't really have metaclass trickery so you'd probably do new Interface({ method() {}, property: attribute('string') }) or whatever

17:52 <jfhbrook> then later on, iThinger.implementedBy(Thinger)

17:52 <jfhbrook> but probably also iThinger.conforms(thingerInstance)

17:52 <jfhbrook> and for the win, implement an adapter registry

17:53 <jfhbrook> you don't have decs in js either so you don't get that bit of sugar

20:50 <elliottcable> ljharb: I fucking know, ugh

20:50 <elliottcable> 10:42:39 PM <+elliottcable> jfhbrook: er, the description very much sounded like it

20:50 <elliottcable> 10:42:45 PM <+elliottcable> I'll watch, joepie91's right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

20:50 <elliottcable> 10:43:14 PM <+elliottcable> “While this design has served us well over the past three years, new challenges and opportunities have forced us to rethink some core parts of the design.”

20:51 <joepie91> elliottcable: context? :P

20:51 <elliottcable> 4:40:58 PM <jfhbrook> you really thing that talk will go into that?

20:51 <elliottcable> 4:41:13 PM <jfhbrook> it's gonna be fluff

20:51 <elliottcable> 4:41:10 PM <jfhbrook> with a title like that it's gonna be "hey look how cool flow is why aren't you using flow"

20:51 <elliottcable> my connection is hella spotty in Barcelona so

20:52 <joepie91> oh, right :P

20:56 <elliottcable> god DAMNIT I can't get nyc/istanbul working

21:27 <ljharb> make sure it's istanbul, not constantinople