Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariTypeScript vs Xtend
When comparing TypeScript vs Xtend, the Slant community recommends TypeScript for most people. In the question“What is the best programming language to learn first?” TypeScript is ranked 6th while Xtend is ranked 68th. The most important reason people chose TypeScript is:
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference. It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Optional static typing
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference.
It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Pro Strong typed language
Lot of benefits of it, you can read this.
Pro Strict superset of Javascript
Every existing Javascript program is already a valid TypeScript program giving it the best support for existing libraries, which is particularly useful if you need to integrate with an existing Javascript code base.
Pro First party Visual Studio support
As a Microsoft developed project, it has first party Visual Studio support that's on par with its C# support with features like syntax sensitive statement completion.
Pro Has a repository of high quality TypeScript type definitions for popular libraries
There are many ready to use and high quality TypeScript definitions for popular libraries including jquery, angular, bootstrap, d3, lodash and many-many more.
Pro Adds support for object-oriented programming
Typescript enables familiar object-oriented programming patterns: classes, inheritance, public/private methods and properties, et cetera.
Pro Polyfill for ES6 fat-arrow syntax
Typescript implements the fat arrow syntax, which always maintains the current context for this and is a shorter/more convenient syntax than traditional function definition.
Pro Great support for React, integrated typed JSX parsing
Strongly typed react components, so UI "templating" automatically gains type safety.
Pro Great support for editors (Sublime, Code, Vim, IntelliJ...)
Pro Works well with existing Javascript code
Both can call Javascript code and be called by Javascript code. Making transitioning to the language very easy.
Pro Compiles to very native looking code
Compiles to simple looking Javascript making it easy to understand what is happening and learn the language (if you already know Javascript).
Pro Built and supported by Microsoft
Being built by Microsoft, TypeScript is much more likely than most other similar open-source projects to receive continued long-term support, good documentation, and a steady stream of development.
Pro Ability to do functional programming
Pro Clear roadmap
TypeScript has a clear and defined roadmap with rapid and constant releases.
Pro Low number of logical errors brought in by built-in type annotations
TypeScript's built-in type signatures allow developers to fully document interfaces and make sure that they will be correctly compiled. Therefore, cutting down on logical errors.
Pro Works well with Angular 2
Angular 2 is built using TypeScript and applications built using it can make use of that (or not).
Pro Ruby-like syntactic conveniences
Lambdas are written like Smalltalk's blocks. If it's the last argument, it can go after the parentheses like Ruby's blocks. Parentheses on method calls are optional.
Pro Type inference
It uses Java's static type system, but you don't have to declare the type of everything all the time, since the Xtend compiler can usually figure it out. This also dramatically cuts down on Java's infamous verbosity.
Pro Code runs just as fast as Java
Because Xtend relies heavily on JDK and Android classes, it runs just as fast as native Java code.
Pro Easy to switch back to Java
Xtend is a low-risk option. Because it compiles to human-readable Java, if you decide you don't like it for your project, you can just switch back to Java without losing your work.
Pro Extend even library classes with new methods
This is where it gets its name. You can open classes and add new methods, kind of like Ruby. (Of course this has to be compiled to Java, so really it lives in a kind of helper class.)
Pro Succint
Uses functional features ,which are very concise and idiomatic. Plus it has annotations, which cuts down on the Java boilerplate.
Pro Better defaults than Java
Methods are public if you don't specify, and fields are private. Locals declared with val in Xtend are final in Java. This dramatically cuts down on Java's infamous verbosity.
Cons
Con Too similar to Javascript
Presents some advantages compared to Javascript, but because it is designed to be a superset of Javascript, it means all the bad parts of Javascript are still present.
Con Type checking not enforced by default
You have to use compiler flags to make sure it catches flaws like usage of implicit any, etc.
Con Type inference coverage is incomplete
The default type when declaring and using a variable is any. For example, the following should break but does not:
function add(a:number) { return a + 1 }
function addAB(a, b) {return add(a) + b}
addAB("this should break but doesn't :(", 100)In order to avoid this, you have to declare type signatures for every variable or parameter or set the flag --noImplicityAny when running the compiler.
Con Requires "this" for field access
Even in cases were there is no ambiguity, you still have to use "this.fieldName" instead of just "fieldName".
Con Syntax is too verbose
Con No support for dead code elimination
Typescript compiler does not remove dead code from generated file(s), you have to use external tools to remove unused code after compilation. This is harder to achieve, because Typescript compiler eliminated all type information.
Con No support for conditional compilation
There is no clean way to have debug and release builds compiled from the same source, where the release version removes all debugging tools and outputs from the generated file(s).
Con Awful error messages
Comparing to Elm or Rust for example, TypeScript's error messages won't say you very much. For example if you change method of interface which your class implements it won't say your class have incorrect implementation. Instead it'll show error in usage of instances of class. In some cases it can spoil hours of your work trying to figure out why your parameters are incorrect.
Con Technical debt
As consequence of not enforcing type checking.
Con No Java-like package structure
If you prefer a Java-like approach of partitioning your code into different packages, the module system of typescript will confuse you.
Con Small community
Con No option to declare that a function throws errors
Con Difficult to configure in Android Studio
Con Slower compilation
Unlike most JVM languages, Xtend compiles to Java rather than directly to JVM bytecode. So you have to compile everything four times for Android: from Xtend to Java, from Java to JVM bytecode (.class files), from .class to .dex bytecode, and then AOT compilation from .dex to native ARM upon installation. This can really slow down development and testing vs a more interactive language like Clojure.
