Again, this isn't meant to be antagonistic. I'm genuinely curious what you intend on doing with stats overall rather then top languages.
For example, if a language has 10 users and 5 stops using it, that's interesting. If a language has 10000 users and 5000 disappears, that's also interesting. If a language has 3 users and 1 stops using it, that's too interesting.
Seems also just to care about the top languages and their growth/shrink rate, while is interested, doesn't necessary mean it's the fastest shrinking languages overall.
Thanks for sharing that resource though.
There's almost no "feature of Typescript" apart from typing. We have "?." and "??" now, but that's almost it? Building features on top of JS has always been a non-goal.
Also, "My thoughts on TypeScript did not change, of course" - why "of course"? It's nothing obvious, and revising your opinion is always wise
At least, private/static fields, optional chaining & null coalescing (as you pointed out), default parameters are now in JS (almost). I'll add them to the article to make it more clear.
However, it is sad and somewhat surprising to see South America and Africa so far behind.
Who is surprised that the continent of Africa lags behind? How could anyone, at this point, be surprised by the struggles faced by people across the continent of Africa?
> I refuse to bow to the notion that everyone should learn to code or become programmers...
Most programming isn't as hard as people seem to think.
> ...because trucking jobs will be gone.
Driving a truck is quite a bit more difficult than people seem to think. Frankly, I'm fairly confident that truck drivers will be better off than your average white collar worker, even if trucking is completely automated.
In the world where "everyone at a desk does some programming", any properly educated person within a std.dev. or two of average intelligence will be fine. The only question is whether there will be enough work to go around.
I don’t think that is true even today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule: ”in a normal distribution […] 68.27%, 95.45% and 99.73% of the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean”
So, your claim is that only the bottom (and, possibly top) 2.5% of the distribution need to worry. That corresponds with IQs of below 70/above 130 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient)
Also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_perf...): ”The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs”.
I use that ballpark because I'm told it's (very roughly) the population that my students were randomly selected from. My methodology isn't perfect, to be sure, but I'm not pulling numbers out of thin air :)
The specific criteria is that none of my students had an IEP. And, by definition, everyone more than two standard deviations from mean had an IEP.
Now, probably there are a lot of students with IEPs who are less than two standard deviations from the mean. Hard to know who those students were in terms of the IQ distribution. Probably a lot of them are on the lower end, but possibly learning disabilities are more smoothly distributed than that. And I also don't know how many students were excluded, so even if we knew where to concentrate their mass in the IQ distribution, it wouldn't help.
It's worth noting that this means I also never worked with students who tested above two standard deviations from the mean. "Gifted" students had their own special education that ran concurrently with the period of the day when the enrichment activities were done. I guess the assumption is they'd be fine, but I'm told by some teachers that's not necessarily the case.
I'm being sarcastic but the point is that essential skills change as society advances. Eventually some basic level of coding skill will be just as important as literacy.
The subjective parts of that statement are the author's opinion and fine enough, but I am confused by the "dependencies" part. TypeScript is a single self-contained dependency. Especially in the context of the larger web ecosystem where to do almost anything else you do need a million dependencies, I find this remark pretty confusing.
Obviously this is not obligatory. Also I agree, the statement is not clear so I'll add above point to the article.
Not quite sure though, IoT would surely ruin my day eventually.