microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

[Design Policy] Consider JSDoc feature parity with Typescript

Open
#30,624 14 comments 27 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Awaiting More Feedback Suggestion
Dominant language
Go
Stars
111k
Forks
14.3k
Avg merge
2d 4h
Merged PRs (30d)
132

Description

Search Terms

jsdoc parity, jsdoc equivalence, jsdoc

Suggestion

The JSDoc mode of TypeScript is very useful in cases where a build step (esp for node libraries for example) isn't desired or when other constraints prevent not writing in JS. However it can be annoying when trying to implement something that can't be expressed in JSDoc mode due to requiring Typescript syntax.

As such I would like to propose that TypeScript ensures that anything that can be written inside a .ts file can be expressed (in at least some way) within a pure javascript + jsdoc file.

In order to get an idea of the current scope needed for feature parity this is a list of issues and features that break parity between the two modes (if any are missing just say and I'll add to the list):

  • [Bug?] No way to express the object type
    • Currently in JSDoc /** @type {object} */ is equivalent to /** @type {any} */, there doesn't seem to be any way to represent const x: object purely in JS + JSDoc, this seems like a bug. Fixed
  • interface
  • abstract class
  • protected/private members Fixed
  • function overloading v5.0
  • defaults for generics
  • declare syntax in it's various forms and declaration merging
    • declare global { ... }
    • declare module "moduleName"
    • declare class Foo
    • declare interface
    • declare namespace
  • namespace
  • enum
    • /** @enum */ is not quite equivalent
  • as const v4.5
  • non-null assertion expr!

Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

  • [✓] This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
  • [✓] This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
  • [✓] This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
  • [✓] This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, etc.)
  • [✓] This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reviewing the listed JSDoc parity gaps, including interface, abstract class, declaration forms, namespace, enum, and non-null assertions. Follow the referenced issues for function overloading, generic defaults, and as const, then determine which gaps remain and define completion criteria for each proposed capability.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
javascript, typescript
Domain
compilers
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.