user_account's comments

On: DeviceScript – TypeScript for Tiny IoT Devices

[user_account]

With MicroPython you can have C drivers and just do the MicroPython bindings. I do not see the benefits of having yet another interpreted IoT language and it does not make sense to do the drivers in the interpreted language itself.

[Ins43b → user_account]

I think having a strongly typed language is a great reason to have another interpreted language for IoT/embedded.

[actionfromafar → Ins43b]

Typescript is more of "firmly" typed than strongly, in my not so humble opinion.

I guess it's beats C for IoT, but with Typescript it still feels like the S in IoT stands for Security.

[mmoskal → actionfromafar]

The consequences of a type unsoundness in TypeScript are typically much more benign (an exception typically) than in C (a buffer overflow, arbitrary code execution, etc.). Also the application logic is more visible in TypeScript just due to it being higher-level - there isn't so much low-level detail (ever done JSON in C?) so less chance for a mistake.

On: DeviceScript – TypeScript for Tiny IoT Devices

[user_account]

Do they really need to "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" micropython?

[thawab → user_account]

This is not the case here, because:

- It's a different language/project, therefor no embrace or extending happening.

- It's just 2 hackers working in microsoft, we don't have to dismiss their work because their employer actions years ago.

- It's open source.