Release/maintain TypeScript bindings (.d.ts) for ReactJS

[DanTup]

I really like React; but I kinda hate JavaScript due to lack of typing. TypeScript looks good; but the 3rd party bindings are truly terrible (constantly breaking, and generally not versioned at all well).

The immutable JS collections released recently by Facebook include TypeScript bindings; which fills us with hope that maybe the same might happen for React. Please, make it so :)

I'm aware JSX won't work with TypeScript; that's no big loss; I prefer pure script, it plays nicer with existing JS tools.

[Wolfwyrd]

+1

[ronag]

+1

[syranide]

Related #759

It's very much possible and technically shouldn't be that hard. However, from the discussions so far the devs most likely don't want to officially maintain JSX for any non-JS language out there. I don't think they should either, it's arbitrary and better left for the community, in the case of TS there are syntax conflicts that need to be solved/worked around.

If there's a robust solution that covers the vast majority of languages at the same time it would perhaps make sense, but perhaps an unlikely reality.

[DanTup]

I think you've misunderstood; and I don't think #759 is related. That's asking for some support for TypeScript constructs in JSX, which indeed will be complicated.

I'm not asking for any changes to any code/functionality; only for a TypeScript definition file to be released with React. This is not related to JSX at all; it would just annotate the types so TypeScrip can give code-completion and "type checking" for things like react.DOM.xxx and the methods available in each object.

Facebook have already done this with immutable collections; the TypeScript definition is here:
https://github.com/facebook/immutable-js/blob/master/type-definitions/Immutable.d.ts

[DanTup]

FWIW, I believe the bindings could be auto-generated if there's sufficient metadata about the types in react. If the docs are auto-generated, then it's possible just a variation of that script; which would then only need running with each release/checkin to keep current?

[syranide]

Oh ofc. Although it may not be the entire story, it seems that the next release (0.12) will not feature React.createClass as a requirement, but you will provide the class to a function similar to React.createDescriptorFactory instead. That and there's a lot of work being done to make React statically analyzable which I imagine will go some way to improving this some more, but I believe React.createClass is the by far biggest issue with TS today?

[DanTup]

I haven't actually tried using TS yet; so I wasn't sure if there were any issues in doing so. I've been bitten recently by poor TS bindings for other projects (like Angular), so since we're prototyping in React, I was trying to raise support for official bindings here in the hope they could be provided (and versioned with React).

To be honest; if we choose to use React, we probably wouldn't be against creating/maintaining bindings ourselves; as long as the required data is exposed in some parsable form (though if it is; it'd be nicer for everyone if FB created them ;-))

[abergs]

Hey there @DanTup.

Typescript is currently not very compatible with React, and it seems the problem needs fixing on both sides of the fence. You could have a look at this project https://github.com/fdecampredon/react-typescript by @fdecampredon. My comment in #759 should also be of interest to you: #759 (comment)

I love typescript but I also like to think in Components like React allows you to. The way we are currently progressing is that we are building all views and components in JSX and all stores / logic in TS until we can go full Typescript (which i hope is something like 6-12 months away)

[DanTup]

@abergs Thanks for the info; I'd read through #759, but it seemed to be much bigger than I was asking for (JSX support is certainly complicated, and we're not all that interested in that due to poor tooling support). I hoped it'd be possible to have TS support just for code-completion and type checking in components (ideally with generics so our State/Props could be typed too).

It's not a dealbreaker; since as you point out, we could still use TS for the rest of the code; it'd just be nice if we got the benefits of TS everywhere :-)

[abergs]

@DanTup I'm with you!

However the issues linked in my #759 (comment) is very much related to react/TS without JSX

[BabakMN]

+1

[vsiao]

https://github.com/borisyankov/DefinitelyTyped/tree/master/react has up-to-date (unofficial) d.ts files for React. Let me know if you have any issues with them (file an issue over at DefinitelyTyped, cc @vsiao).

[gaearon]

Seems like this is resolved.

[donaldpipowitch]

@gaearon I wouldn't say it is solved, if you mean the unofficial typings in DefinitelyTyped with that. IMHO these are a workaround. For example it is very hard to control typings for prereleases of React with DefinitelyTyped.

[gaearon]

What is actionable for the team here?

[donaldpipowitch]

I guess we need a statement if the team is interested in including Typescript definitions or not and if they would accept definitions inside a PR what the requirements are.