We Keep Coding

Using Typescript with transpiled, unsupported/custom language files

The Problem
I have JavaScript-like files with extension .gml
I can convert the source to valid JavaScript via magic-string, and can go back the other way using trace-mapping.
I want to leverage Typescript on my .gml files to get strong Intellisense, e.g. by:
Creating a Typescript "program" that acts on the .gml->.js transpiled files and reports issues back; and
Creating a VSCode extension that proxies functionality to the Typescript language server and reverse-source-maps the results back to the editor.
It feels like there should be a relatively straight forward and generalizable approach to this, but my experiments have not worked out. Reference projects are either for much-more-complex scenarios or much simpler ones, and documentation on the matter is very light.
Prior Art
VueJS and Svelte use custom filetypes (.vue and .svelte), which they pre-process into valid Typescript, HTML, and CSS prior to proxying through to those respective language servers.
Their use cases are far more complicated than mine, and their code bases to accomplish this are extensive. I'm hoping to find a much more streamlined approach.
Possible approaches
I've had a little luck following the Svelte approach of creating a Typescript service and hooking up VSCode operations onto it, but this is extremely tedious.
I suspect that there's some possibility of using a Typescript plugin, but as far as I can tell that approach doesn't support using non-js/ts extensions nor source maps.
In any case I know I'll have to do significant work with the to-and-from-sourcemap conversions, but ideally that's the only difficult work I'd need to do.
Questions
Have you seen any examples in the wild of people solving a similar problem, or solved similar problems yourself?
Are there any deep-dive write-ups about this (I've found a few shallow ones)?
Is the plugin approach viable?
What are the possible ways to get non-js/ts extensions recognized by Typescript?

React - using TypeScript vs Flow vs?

I'm currently learning React and I think I understand it pretty well. However, there's one thing that's been bothering me regarding development of robust React applications - what tools do developers use for static type checking?
I really like TypeScript. I think it reduces the pain of developing JavaScript applications quite a lot, thanks to type checking and other neat features. Visual Studio Code also offers a really nice code completion. And I know that I can make it work with React by using typings + DenifitelyTyped.
The thing is, there aren't many tutorials about using React + TypeScript. There also doesn't seem to be many articles about developing using this combo. On the other hand, many people seem to be using Flow, which is a project backed by Facebook (and I guess they also use it).
I've managed to find a discussion on Reddit with pros and cons about going the React + TypeScript / React + Flow way. However, to me, it appears to be quite outdated as it is about 10 months old now. I think a lot has changed since then.
I've also found two articles about using React + Flow and React + TypeScript. The author states some issues he's run into when using both of the options and concludes that TypeScript is "the best bet right now" (November 2015), especially because the Flow project has many issues and receives low developer activity from Facebook. He also mentions it doesn't play well with Babel?
So, I guess the question would be: Is it safe to use the React + TypeScript combo, or will I run into some difficulties? What about Flow? Are there some other similar tools I should check out? Which approach would you recommend?
Update September 2017:
Having more than a year of experience with daily use of TypeScript, and playing with Flow for a while, I've came to the following conclusions:
TypeScript is still painful to use to this very day. The problem is that the JavaScript world just moves so fast that TypeScript keeps lagging behind. Thinking about using that fancy new ES7 stage 3 feature? Nope, you can't. Wishing to get type hints for the latest version of some library? Wait a month, or two, maybe more...
Flow has come a long way, it has been improved a lot, it can catch some things that TS can't. Best of all, it finally works on Windows. Also, there's great plugin for VS Code (no idea why it has only 3/5 rating). And it works 100 % with React Native, TypeScript is not even 50 % there yet.
Most of the time, you don't need types at all. All the additional typing is rarely worth it. JS is a dynamically typed language, get over it :)
TL;DR: If you plan to use any type checker, I recommend using Flow.
Update February 2019:
I believe the recommendation above got out of date and is no longer relevant. Three reasons:
React Hooks are here. They make type-checking your code much easier. In most situations, no additional code is needed.
TypeScript's type inference has improved.
TypeScript has much bigger community than Flow. Even yarn, Facebook's package manager, is moving away from Flow, to TypeScript.
So, I think TypeScript is a much more pragmatic choice than Flow in 2019.
As to whether it's even worth using any type checker at all, I'd say it depends on the project size. Small projects probably don't need it.

I'm going to start this answer saying that I have never used Flow, so I can't say much about it. But, we are using React and TypeScript at work and it works great.
We have all the benefits I imagine you already know about, like refactoring, type safety, autocompletion, etc.
Sure, for what I have seen, the Flow syntax is cleaner than TypeScript, but you can add your types using TypeScript incrementally. I think, this is more a matter of taste. Some people prefer to have the code explicitly typed, others prefer to type less and have a stronger type inference.
About, the technologies I'd say TypeScript is a safe bet, Microsoft is pushing the language (there will be a version 2 soon), Angular is using it as well and there are a lot of Angular developers. Even here on SO, the tag TypeScript has more than 4K followers and it's rare to have an unanswered question.
The big issue with TypeScript, at least for us is that from time to time, we decide to use a component or a library that does not have the type definitions, so we have to create them ourselves. But I guess, that's a way to contribute back to the community.

I just asked myself the same question (though not with React) and found the following articles useful in evaluating the two:
http://michalzalecki.com/typescript-vs-flow/ (2016-07-15)
https://blog.wearewizards.io/flow-and-typescript-part-2-typescript (2015-11-20)
https://blog.wearewizards.io/flow-and-typescript-part-1-flow (2015-11-13)
The approach taken by the flow designers feels more functional with better type inference and a better approach for nulls. However, TypeScript has better community support especially with respect to pulling in types for third party libraries via http://definitelytyped.org/ which is important for having types flow through all your code for maximum type safety. TypeScript is created by Microsoft which has a rich history in writing compilers and evolving the technology in favorable directions - notable here is C# and the fact that they are already adding non-null types (2016-07-11): https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/typescript/2016/07/11/announcing-typescript-2-0-beta/
TypeScript seems like the safer bet today.
And for those trying TypeScript out in an existing codebase I found the following settings in my tsconfig.json file really helpful in allowing TypeScript to co-exist nicely with JavaScript (allowing transition one file at a time):
{
"compilerOptions": {
"allowJs": true,
"isolatedModules": true,
...
}
}

In my React development, I have quite a complex Babel / Webpack / Flow / Mocha toolchain set up and never had any issues with Flow. Takes some effort to set everything up (Webpack can be daunting at first), but afterwards, it just works. Flow is definitely the way to go as it is a narrower and more focused technology and as such more likely to play well with other tools. In contrast, TypeScript tries to be a lot more than just a type inference / static type checker tool and so it brings additional baggage and assumptions. So React is a specialized tool that does one thing well while TypeScript is effectively a language layered on top of JavaScript. To make sure Microsoft drives its point home, TypeScript files customarily have a different extension as well (.ts instead of .js) because you are now using a different language, got it?
TypeScript uses code generation to spit out JavaScript whereas in Flow the annotations are simply stripped off, there's no code generation as such. In the past, the Microsoft people promoting TypeScript used to make a statement to the effect that code generation is "file-local" (I don't remember the exact terminology used). This was supposed to provide a soothing reassurance that the TypeScript compiler isn't doing anything too magical. At any rate I can't find that statement prominently displayed any more. With Flow you don't need such assurances as you write in plain JavaScript (or whatever ECMA version you've configured Babel for) and the annotations are, like I said, simply stripped.
Not to mention that TypeScript is coming from a company that specializes in unethical and questionable technical practices (I don't rule out that TypeScript may eventually turn out to be the Mother of all Embrace-Extend-Extinguish ploys). Let's not forget that Microsoft did everything in their power to cause Javascript to fail as they (rightly, if belatedly) foresaw what a threat it represented, and still represents, to their crappy operating system and their bloated office suite.
Additionally, Flow's type system was much more powerful last time I bothered to evaluate TypeScript (circa 2015) and it was much easier to apply it incrementally or even sporadically in the sources. For integrating third party libraries I am using flowtyped and it is very rare that I need to complement those found there with my own definitions.
Finally, the fact that Angular uses TypeScript means absolutely nothing as Angular is not really relevant for new projects. React has won hands down, time to move on.

If you want type checks but would prefer to keep plain old javascript (to avoid compiling, or for portability, etc), here's one important distinction between the two (for React or in general):
With Flow the initial setup can run static analysis on vanilla js (it infers many types):
function square(n) {
return n * n; // Error!
}
square("2");
With TypeScript there's a migration effort and only some vanilla js static analysis without it:
noImplicitReturns which prevents you from forgetting to return at the end of a function.
noFallthroughCasesInSwitch which is helpful if you never want to forget a break statement between cases in a switch block.
TypeScript will also warn about unreachable code and labels, which you can disable with allowUnreachableCode and allowUnusedLabels respectively.
More Benefits To Flow
Flow's Comment Types and Error Suppression take support for vanilla js a step further, by allowing you to gradually incorporate type checks through legal js comments that annotate the type or suppress specific checks you might not be ready for yet. Comment types have been a feature request in TypeScript for quite some time, and only recently has there been a PR for it (see previous link).
Downsides To Flow
That said, all of Flow's simplicity does come at the cost of some pretty complex configuration with some annoying caveats, like how it type checks 3rd party libraries, etc. The best advice someone can give about Flow: try to cross-reference anything you read in their documentation as it's outdated and in some cases can be a little misleading.

Working with Angular 2 [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Our team is way too excited with the alpha release of Angular 2 and we're just eagerly waiting for it's stable release and getting started with it.
But during the ng-conf 2015 on Angular 2 by Misko, we came across following things which made me confused
TypeScript! Is it really needed to use typescript to gain better performance instead of writing plain simple JS code we've been doing all along. We've came across a few comments that says typescript helps in better performance.
ES6 features. Since angular 2 will be using a lot of es6 features, would that mean we'll have to wait for all the browsers support at least those features needed by angular 2 before we can kick start with it on our production applications.
Web components. Since angular 2 provides the facility to create web components and I've came across a few blogs on creating your own (using polymer), how hard is it gonna be for our team to create them? Or is it better if we just stick to old directives creation thing ?
Performance. I've seen this video of Angular + React which provides a good comparison of angular vs angular + react vs angular 2. But I'm not sure if that's the case that angular 2 is really fast all the way or if we can go ahead with building angular + react app to avoid waiting for angular 2 to stabilize or the browsers to have support for es6 features that angular uses.
I'm not sure I've structured my question well, but above are my concerns before I start learning angular 2 because with their demonstration of angular 2 + typescript seemed like it's gonna involve a lot of earning curve for me and my team.
I'll really appreciate if someone can clarify on the above listed concerns I have.
Thanks.

TypeScript! Is it really needed to use typescript to gain better performance instead of writing plain simple JS code we've been doing all along. We've came across a few comments that says typescript helps in better performance.
TypeScript is about static analysis for better type-safety. It also has a pretty nice suite of editor tools (e.g. WebStorm). You don't need it for performance. It's more a tool for helping you author. Personally though, I love it.
I've begun migrating some of my existing open-source libraries to TypeScript because it's so much easier to work with. For example, check out Task Runner before and after.
ES6 features. Since angular 2 will be using a lot of es6 features, would that mean we'll have to wait for all the browsers support at least those features needed by angular 2 before we can kick start with it on our production applications.
A lot of ES6 features can be polyfilled. Check out https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/wiki/HTML5-Cross-Browser-Polyfills.
Web components. Since angular 2 provides the facility to create web components and I've came across a few blogs on creating your own (using polymer), how hard is it gonna be for our team to create them? Or is it better if we just stick to old directives creation thing ?
Web components are also polyfillable (see here). In this case, I'd suggest you follow the Angular team's recommended practices for creating your components. Also perhaps keep an eye on what's coming out of the Polymer team in this regard.
Performance. I've seen this video of Angular + React which provides a good comparison of angular vs angular + react vs angular 2. But I'm not sure if that's the case that angular 2 is really fast all the way or if we can go ahead with building angular + react app to avoid waiting for angular 2 to stabilize or the browsers to have support for es6 features that angular uses.
This sounds to me like premature optimization. Build for (plain) Angular first and optimize only if you notice performance problems in particular parts of your application.

TypeScript! Is it really needed to use typescript to gain better performance instead of writing plain simple JS code we've been doing all along. We've came across a few comments that says typescript helps in better performance.
TypeScript is not required to use Angular2.
Most examples you see will use JavaScript:
classes (ES6)
decorators (ES7/Typescript)
types - (Typescript)
Except, browsers don't support those features yet so all Angular2 source will need to be transpiled to ES5.
So in ES5:
classes can be faked by extending prototypes
decorators can be faked using wrapper functions
types aren't really necessary to begin with, they're synctatic sugar added for safety
It would be unrealistic to expect existing users to inherit the risk of using experimental/bleeding-edge standards. As such, the documentation covers writing Angular2 apps in ES5, ES6/7, and Typescript.
Aside: I personally prefer not to use TypeScript. Traceur can be configured to support with experimental extensions for #decorators, and system.js provides a polyfill for the proposed es6-moduler-loader spec.
Here's a look at the Angular2 Documentation.
ES6 features. Since angular 2 will be using a lot of es6 features, would that mean we'll have to wait for all the browsers support at least those features needed by angular 2 before we can kick start with it on our production applications.
As I said already, ES6 isn't officially supported yet in all browsers. Even if it were, most sites will still require a polyfill to provide backwards compatibility to older browsers.
One of the cool features of the es6-module-loader is the ability to dynamically load dependencies on the fly. By the time Angular2 is out of beta, it should be easy to incorporate this into your app as a feature-detection strategy.
Web components. Since angular 2 provides the facility to create web components and I've came across a few blogs on creating your own (using polymer), how hard is it gonna be for our team to create them? Or is it better if we just stick to old directives creation thing?
Not hard although you may need to use Angular2-specific web components. The reason being, Angular2 is more than a front-end web framework. It's can also be used for isomorphic (ie prerender on the back-end), native, and mobile apps. That means, touching the DOM directly is highly discouraged.
As for the creation of the components themselves... It's no different than creating any other component in Angular2. Unlike the old MVC model of grouping code by type (ie models, views, controllers), the component model encourages grouping code by context.
When you import a reusable component, it should come with any directives, services, etc required to use it.
For an example, see the I created. In addition to cloning the repo directly from GH, the code can be installed and imported directly via JSPM.
Simply import it, add the component class to your view directives and any <ng2-markdowm> element in your template will just work. It doesn't get much easier than that.
Performance. I've seen this video of Angular + React which provides a good comparison of angular vs angular + react vs angular 2. But I'm not sure if that's the case that angular 2 is really fast all the way or if we can go ahead with building angular + react app to avoid waiting for angular 2 to stabilize or the browsers to have support for es6 features that angular uses.
There are 3 major performance improvements introduced in Angular2.
1. 2-way data binding is no longer the default
Elements that require data binding need to be explicitly marked in the template (ie don't fret, the new syntax makes this really simple). As a result the overhead required to do dirty checking on the DOM is dramatically reduced.
That means, no more $scope, $scope.apply(), and weird scoping rules in the HTML markup. Instead, the hierarchy of custom <elements> is defined in the Angular2 components.
2. Angular2 leverages the virtual DOM
jQuery made it extremely simple to directly manipulate the DOM. As a result, it also made it extremely easy for inexperienced developers to thrash the DOM and trigger layout reflows via frequent incremental updates.
The VDOM is basically a simplified in-memory representation of the DOM. Incremental updates get applied directly to the VDOM which later get applied to the actual DOM in batches.
Aside from network requests, DOM manipulation is JavaScript's greatest performance weakness. The VDOM on the other hand is an order of magnitude faster. Instead of expecting devs to follow 'best practices' by manually batching updates to the DOM, Angular handles batching transparently.
Fewer DOM manipulations = less UI rendering/reflows = a much more responsive user experience.
3. Angular2 runs on a background worker
This isn't exactly a new concept. Desktop GUIs have worked this way for years, it just wasn't technically possible the introduction of HTML5 background workers.
In most desktop applications, the main context runs synchronously+ and the UI runs asynchronously in it's own separate thread. That makes the user experience responsive regardless of whatever the application is doing in the main context.
+Note: This isn't necessarily true, but for clarity sake.
In the browser, all execution happens in the main context+. That means, every time Javascript has to block on a CPU-heavy operation, the user interface becomes unresponsive to the user. This is not ideal and makes for a lousy/inconsistent user experience.
+Note: In practice browser implementations vary greatly but lets keep things simple.
With web workers, it's possible to push everything but the DOM+ into a background worker context. Ideally, Javascript's should have little-or-no impact on UI responsiveness.
+Note: The DOM's state still needs to be accessible to the renderer.
One side-effect this transition is, the Angular2 architecture is now completely decoupled from the UI/DOM. Meaning, it's now possible to write UI adapters for other platforms (ex for IOS, Android, SmartTVs, etc) that run on the same Angular2 code natively.
React
As far as I can tell React is using all of the same performance improvements as Angular. They use the VDOM to batch updates, and mentioned native portability to other platforms so I assume they went through the same architectural change as Angular.
Honestly, using background processing to free up the UI is just another step in the evolution to reach feature parity with desktop applications.
Angular2 vs React
I encourage you to watch the video again all the way to the end. The presenter screwed up when he wrote the code so the live demo wasn't an honest comparison.
With that said, it doesn't really matter which is faster. Neither will be dramatically faster than the other but they'll both be dramatically more responsive and scalable compared to other UI frameworks.
Update:
Rewrote the section about web components to better answer the question.

Note that Angular 2.0 does promise to work well with Web Components and Polymer, but in the current stage, i.e. Angular 2.0 alpha, it doesn't work (see this). So you'll have to wait for a while I guess.

What JavaScript UI testing framework should I use for a simple HTML5 + jQuery app?

I'm about to write a simple HTML5 + JavaScript (jQuery) app in my spare time in order to keep up with the latest web technologies (at work it's more advanced C# backend stuff).
I'd like to develop in the same fashion that I've done for the last ten years or so, namely TDD style.
Being new to the TDD/BDD/AcceptanceTDD world in HTML/JavaScript, my question is: is there a great framework or the like for writing test against a web page in a browser (out-of-the-box support for many browsers being a definitive plus)?
The reason I'd like to use JavaScript is two-fold. 1. I'd like to learn more JavaScript, and 2. I'd like to use the same language(s) for the tests as I do for development.
Otherwise, I could simply use my C# skills and use Selenium, WatiN, or a similar framework.
I've found Jasmine, QUnit, and a homegrown solution using jQuery at MSDN, but don't get a feel for the flow nor complexity, so recommendations and first hand experiences are more than welcome.

JS Test Driver is the framework recommended by the Javascript TDD book from O'Reilly that I'm reading right now. I haven't actually had a chance to play with it much yet, but:
A dude who wrote a book on JS testing recommends it
It has a very nice feature set (automated test running across multiple browsers being key)
It comes from Google (love 'em or hate 'em, they have a lot of smart JS people working there)
So at the very least it's worth checking out I think.

At this point, I'd recommend Jasmine. I've used it successfully on a few projects. I haven't really run up against too many frustrating situations where I just couldn't get something done (unlike other tools). It can be set up in different configurations, depending on your preference-- it can be as simple as opening a page in a browser, or it can be "served" dynamically.
There are dozens of tools out there in general usage-- and so far-- no clear winner. I've tried a quite a few of them, and-- as John Resig points out-- creating a simple testing framework isn't that complicated. But adding some tools to make it convenient is important. Jasmine is the most complete one I've used, but it's not bloated.
Important considerations:
set up: don't adopt a tool that doesn't work easily out of the box
style: use a tool that makes sense to you in the context of the rest of your testing tools. For example, if you use BDD tools, find a BDD Javascript framework. This is probably the biggest variance in the frameworks-- might as well pick one that has a syntax you like.
cross-browser: the tests should work across browsers
automation: you should be able to script the running of the tests in one or multiple browsers
testing time-based code-- if you Javascript has behavior tied to the clock (as in animations), having a testing framework the facilitates this is nice
mocking: jasmine has a nice mocking support that really helps
You really do not need to use Selenium for simple unit tests-- it complicates the configuration and is a more difficult programming model than a simple unit testing framework.

I've struggled with this a lot. I think Selenium is your best bet especially since it sounds like you've used it before. The other stuff for JS is mostly unit testing.
Not to diminish machineghost's answer, JS Test Driver rocks for unit testing.

I ended up using QUnit since I found it very simple to just insert the PUT (Page Under Test) in an <iframe>, and use jQuery to access it from the unit tests.
That way I don't need any other external dependencies other than the browser itself (the logic resides 100% in the client) and any text editor.

Turboframework uses javascript, jasmine, selenium and runs with node. You can literally create a test project and run web automated tests in less than 10 minutes. To avoid repeating the documentation that is already available, here's the link to a quick start guide:
https://turboframework.org/en/blog/2021-03-03/automate-your-web-application-tests-in-less-than-ten-minutes

Should I use ScriptSharp

I am developing my first ASP.NET MVC application and I beleive that Script# can help me a lot. But it cannot find the resource necessary to support my development.
I could not find The codeplex site;
There is only one manual, which is very good, but it is not enough;
I could find very few tutorials;
I know that Script# was used to develop ASP.NET MVC scripts and that the source of MVC distributes the library.
But it seems that it is used only internally in Microsoft.
Where can I find other resources???
Do you really think that Script# will be continued and new versions will be deployed and it should be used by third-party projetcs ???
Thanks in advance

Don't be afraid of Javascript, it's a beautiful and powerful language. And with frameworks like jQuery, Prototype and Dojo, DOM manipulation and AJAX are greatly simplified and cross-browser issues are mostly history.
About Script#, I agree with this answer by mcintyre321. Last release over a year ago + closed source = no go for me.
UPDATE Jan/2010: there have been new Script# releases since the original writing of this answer. It's still closed-source but the author mentions open sourcing it after 1.0
UPDATE May 2011: Script# is now open source.

In short, my answer is: if you like powerful IDEs that run on Windows, OOD and C#, use ScriptSharp. It is more maintainable and structured, and demonstrably stable enough to use on serious projects. It can also be easily extended, as illustrated below and by other projects.
Since this is yet another Google indexed thread where people refer to Script# and jQuery as mutually exclusive I just wanted to point out some people are merging these two worlds, and in my case unleashing a lot of power by doing so. I'm offering a completely free and reusable library to access jQuery 1.4 from Script# projects, and full source code for the solution that generates it (almost exclusively from jQuery's own API documentation file):
http://www.christophercrooker.com/visual-studio-2010-rc-custom-tool-for-code-generation-and-jquery14-with-intellisense-for-scriptsharp

IMHO Script# fits well for large projects only, with really "rich" web client. Participating in such kind of project, I could only say that Script# helped us much. josephhemingway's remark about strongly typed is 100% true for such case. Also it allowed us to introduce new .NET developers without any JS background quickly. Assuming Nikhil Kothari's plans to open-source it in the summer 2008, we even decompiled (don't tell anybody! it's illegal) it and introduced generics, operators overloads, various bug fixes, etc.
BUT. Then Script# support faded away. Project on CodePlex with discussions and issue tracking was closed (interesting that parts of framework were published there shortly before). No updates, no future plans, no explanations. After such thing I'd consider Script# only after it goes open source to give the community ability to support it. E.g. on CodePlex.

I use Script#, I think it is great. You can use it with any framework, jQuery, dojo whatever, you would however have to wrap the framework, this could be a big job...
It's only benefit as I see it is that it allows you to develop javascript in a strongly typed environment. I think this is a HUGE benefit. I refuse to develop in weakly typed languages as maintenance is a nightmare.
If however you like to work in a weakly typed language then you wont need Script#.

Short answer NO. Wait for TypeScript.
Script# is really cool, but MS decided not to support it at all. The reason for that turns out to be that they were working on a better version of that - TypeScript (http://www.typescriptlang.org/)
It adds support for everything you need in a static language (intellisense, type checking, interfaces, classes etc.), but still looks very much like JS, and more importantly - confirms to the upcoming ECMA Script 6 standard. (unlike Script# or google's Dart)

Like the others have I would recommend some JavaScript (namely jQuery). Should you wish to continue with Script#, Nikhil Kothari's blog may be a good resource for you. http://www.nikhilk.net/ScriptSharpIntro.aspx -- That being said, I think you'll find that you are more productive with jQuery. There is a large database of community written plugins so you wouldn't necessarily have to reinvent the wheel on everything you want to do. jQuery plugins instead of ASP.NET Controls

Wow Val you got generics to work in
it, I'm impressed, was it hard?
Generics support would be great, so
would method and operator overloading.
josephhemingway
The whole point is that ScriptSharp's parser supports full C# 2.0 syntax. The only thing needed is to generate the proper JS. Not much work, considering JS dynamic nature. Generics would act as Java-style ones, i.e. no generation for each closed type argument set, just one class.
Are you sure that it is illegal to
decompile it, I will have to have a
look to see if it is the terms of use.
josephhemingway
Yep, it's illegal. EULA showed in setup clearly mentions that.

A release went out today, so it is good to see that it is still active.
Regardless of the previous lack of updates and that it not been open sourced I would still use it over plain js. You can stop using Script# at any time and more forward with the 'compiled' js if you don't like it.
I agree with you Val though that it really only fits large js based projects. I don't think you would get much benefit out of using it to perform basic page functionality like validate form input etc. It probably wouldn't be worth setting it up.
If however you are heavily using javascript and need to replicate OOP then I think it is a must. Things like refactoring becomes so easy, with plain js I would never refactor because it was just too hard to implement, over time my code became a mess.
Wow Val you got generics to work in it, I'm impressed, was it hard? Generics support would be great, so would method and operator overloading. Are you sure that it is illegal to decompile it, I will have to have a look to see if it is the terms of use.

The other advantage of using ScriptSharp that no one has mentioned is that if you need to interact with C# (using AJAX/REST/SOAP) you can use the same class definitions in both places and be sure that you have the interface defined properly, because it's the same source file! I have tried to use logic in shared source files with minimal success due to the way ScriptSharp's corelib is not 100% compatible with the C# corelib. But it works great for data file definitions.

I am using jQuery. It is really good. But I beleive that It is more confortable to me to work with C#. Even if it is a subset.

Also I would like to add that you certainly should use ScripSharp when you are planning to develop multiplatform projects. For example, at present time I write my image processing library code for .NET, JavaScript (ScriptSharp), Android (Mono) platforms on C#. Also I am planning to port my code on iOS (Mono) and Windows Phone in the future. And I think it's great code reusing and developer time minimization!