Would any of you care if I dropped TypeScript support from Phaser?

[Alvin]

First : I wouldn't care.

 

As you said we would still be able to create games using both Phaser and Typescript.

 

However, I think you shouldn't worry too much about compatibility with newer versions because, to me, if you make someone download a software to contribute, you can as well specify the version.

 

What matters here is your feelings regarding it.

 

Take courage, we have faith in you

[Noid]

It seems MS loves trolling game developers

 

From what I read here most people are happy with just the d.ts files and TS seems to make Phaser harder to develop instead of easier. When TS becomes more mature and Phaser gains more active contributors you(Rich) can discuss with them whether to readopt it or not.

[rich]

I'm genuinely surprised at how many people said they don't care (or would prefer JS) - but actually am encouraged by it too, so I've started doing some rebuilds tonight to see how it'll go. If it means we don't release until next year then I'll drop the thought for now. But if, as I expect, it will make life easier then I'm doing it now.

[mwatt]

I'm weighing in late, but for what it's worth, here are my thoughts.

 

I'd like the option to use TypeScript at some point and I think it is very cool that you are or were trying to enable this.  Having said that, I would not be using TypeScript for my initial uses of Phaser.  So, I vote, don't care - very much.  Perhaps you could release initially without it and then add the TypeScript support in at some later time?

[sfcal99]

Agree with mwatt. TS ain't ready yet ...

[Orillian]

Please try to refrain from comments like this that have no basis in reality, this statement was barely true 15 years ago and is just false today.

 

 

 

@rich, I would be much more likely to contribute to Phaser if it was in JS instead of TypeScript, and I doubt I am the only one who shares that opinion.

 

This! While I like TS and I continue to play with and dabble in it, I don't feel it's ready for mainstream yet. I'd much prefer a solid JS library with good docs than a ts one that's flaky.

 

O.

[PixelPicoSean]

Agree that TS are not ready now. As for those tests I've made, the only differences between js and ts code are unnecessary type information. As a fan of impact.js I would say pure js is not equal to low-efficient or horrible code at all (I used to be a statical typed language guy, but dropped them completely after tried js). @rich, if javascript is preferred I'll read its code seriously and try my best to contribute.

[scutajar]

I don't really have an opinion either way since I've only just started using Phaser. I started using TypeScript because I was under the impression that it was easier to get into than JavaScript (due to classes, since I'm coming from ActionScript/Flixel, and due to the fact that I'm completely new to JavaScript).

I did manage to get something up and running with TypeScript using Phaser 0.9.5, so now I'm slightly confused about what my approach should be.

[sbat]

I did manage to get something up and running with TypeScript using Phaser 0.9.5, so now I'm slightly confused about what my approach should be.

 

I'd say: don't switch horses until this is really justified. Build a couple of game in TS if you are up to speed with that and don't see big showstoppers as of yet.

 

In my opinion TypeScript is great language for game development. Phaser will support declarations (d.ts), so you will be able to continue building in TypeScript. I will indeed continue building my games with TS and Rich seems to be doing the same.

 

Rich is considering this move for big library for very specific list of reasons. It does not mean that criteria for your game will be the same. 

[rich]

Thanks for the on-going discussion guys. So yesterday I started moving back to JS and the process was far less painful then I expected and I've got a really good chunk of classes converted and tidied up in a very small space of time.

 

Just to add - I think the whole point of TypeScript is fantastic. For ex-Flash devs it is a God-send, but for Phaser it was initially wonderful and (with recent compilers only) a total nightmare. However I will still use it for my games, as they are smaller and easier to manage in terms of code-base size. I just won't use it to build Phaser any more. But the benefits (for me) are clear, it's just not ready yet in terms of compiler / VS plugin stability for a really large code base.

[mrspeaker]

I didn't really look at Phaser because it was in TypeScript - even though I know TypeScript was not necessary to use it. But I always end up either interested in the source, or have the need to hack on the library that I'm using, and that's just an extra (very small) step between writing and seeing my game on the screen.

 

I'm becoming less and less a fan of the transpiled languages in general (especially for a base library): just do plain ol' JavaScript right

[Mike]

A few days on vacation and a lot of news on the phaser front.

 

I want to share my exp with TS , Phaser, JS and coding unfinished breakout game.

 

1. I care about TS support for phaser , so as many said .d.ts are big advantage

 

2. Plain JS i not better then TS - the problems of TS lies at the compilers and IDE bugs and so i want to believe TS will grow up a be time saver and stable language

 

3. The GAME is the most important thing as TS is superscript of JS i don't mind or even complain about writing my game on pure javascript with more debugging tools from chrome very soon the working IDE will be the browser, so I also believe in JS.

 

And for my final words I'm eager to see Phaser 1.0 on the shelves I'm buying it on/from day one.

[rich]

Mike - I will definitely release definition files, because although creating Phaser in TypeScript has been an utter ballache, I still want to make my games using TypeScript. So this is essential for me too, so I won't be forgetting about it.

 

It's just right now the TypeScript compiler is too unstable to be production ready, and I've wasted more time than I care to think of trying to get around its various issues. So it's time to return to JavaScript and fully embrace it properly, then do a definitions file at the end.

[benny!]

I didn't really look at Phaser because it was in TypeScript - even though I know TypeScript was not necessary to use it. But I always end up either interested in the source, or have the need to hack on the library that I'm using, and that's just an extra (very small) step between writing and seeing my game on the screen.

 

I'm becoming less and less a fan of the transpiled languages in general (especially for a base library): just do plain ol' JavaScript right

 

Same here.

 

But then I took Phaser as a reason to evaluate/try out TypeScript - although it's not needed for Phaser programming. Nevertheless - I do not want to go off-topic.

[aberrantmind]

very excited to read this. I've been wanting to try phaser out, but wasn't at all interested in using typescript.

[Ezelia]

very excited to read this. I've been wanting to try phaser out, but wasn't at all interested in using typescript.

 

Phaser was never limited to TypeScript only, as Rich said above, you allways had the choice to use it with TS or JS, and you'll allways keep that choice

[aberrantmind]

yea I know. but a lot of it was written in typescript, and it benefits me a lot to be able to read the engine's code. I know it's not a necessity to do so, so long as it is well documented, but for me it is important and I just wasn't ready to go learn Typescript at the moment as I'm still learning javascript.

[Paul-Andre]

By the way, is it documented yet?

[Rudrabhoj Bhati]

I would be happy if you drop TS support. JavaScript is beautiful and neat in itself.

[mgutz]

Stopped using TypeScript. I didn't see any other benefit than Intellisense. WebStorm does a pretty good job with code intelligence already if code is properly documented with JSDoc. I don't like how TS forces you to think statically and create workarounds just to make things compile. I could put up with it if it gave performance improvements but it doesn't. My workflow suffers. SLOW compilation. Just OK on WebStorm.

 

Maybe people who like it are on Windows and use VS2012. I use Linux and Mac.

[TommyBs]

I'd have to say I'd much prefer just good ol' plain javascript. Not used Typescript so can't comment on it, but if it's causing issues with actually developing a framework for people to use, then I say drop it. You can only support so many people when working on a project like this. If people outgrow something that's fine, but you shouldn't try to support everyone/everything if it results in problems for what you're actually trying to deliver.

[SilentxxBunny]

I've not gotten around to even trying Typescript yet, so like a few others above I'd also be much more likely to try using Phaser if it was in plain Javascript instead of Typescript.

 

My sentiments exactly.

[Pedro Alpera]

I tried TypeScript because of Phaser, but I prefer plain Javascript to TypeScript.

 

Can´t wait to play with Phaser 1.0

[Dang_Khoa]

javascript is ok, typescript makes it more complicated 

[gameDev01]

I, for one, would love it if you just had javascript and html.  It's not very accessible to myself and other people that have no experience with Typescript.  I wish your examples just had .js files with accompanying html files.    TS just seems like it's difficult and causes problems.    I really want to try this framework out but I have no clue how to even set the project up.   JS files + Html files is all I want.

 

 

Framework looks amazing!

 

Cheers