You still could use bitbucket. It allows to create unlimited amount of private repos with max of 5 users.

Open Source doesn't mean free.

Was there a license violation?

https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/blob/master/LICENSE

Is that a joke?

same as for JavaScript

but they use git as well, so you could easily set up a mirror on github.

Try github pages

Here is a little love for Octopress. Easy to mess around with the themes and easy to deploy with github or rsync.

They are going to make it happen.

http://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/438243

The trouble is that, at the moment, asm.js is not a garbage collected environment, whereas TypeScript is much closer to JS than it is to C.

Static typing alone is not sufficient to make asm.js a good target for a language, I think.

Nope.

It is running on Linux/Mac/Windows (node.js module).

And already has support in all major IDE (Visual Studio, IntelliJ) and text editors (Sublime, Emacs, ..)

FWIW, I've only tested emacs support. It's definitely sub-par. Barely indentation and syntax highlighting, we're still in need of a real typescript-mode for emacs.

I appreciate the effort, (I can't say the same for other Microsoft projects), but it's still not fun to play with typescript in emacs (as opposed to more mature projects like Python, C or, of course, Lisp).

Is there more than just syntax support in Sublime? I was pretty psyched when TypeScript was first announced but quickly bummed that the Sublime plugin didn't have any of the fancy autocomplete features.

Yes. There is Sublime-TypeScript

https://github.com/raph-amiard/sublime-typescript

They are aiming to bring ES6 into today development so they looks into ES6 specs very often.

Yes, when the team is interviewed they consistently say that, where there is overlap, Typescript will adapt to follow ES6 standards once agreed upon.

It seems to be very close to CoffeeScript, but without this ugly Ruby syntax (for me).

It's completely unrelated to CoffeeScript, as CS does practically no static analysis and generally CS does almost nothing more than pure JS. What it does is it translates some keywords to a chunks of JavaScript code. If JS had macros - sweet.js! - Coffee would be completely unneeded.

TypeScript is entirely different thing. It adds a layer of static analysis to the language, which does not end in the code that actually runs. Generally everything you type in Coffee has an equivalent in compiled JS; it is not so with TypeScript, where you can write pages of code which won't be visible in the compiled JS.

CS and TS have different goals and are different things, and the only thing they have in common is that they both "transpile"/compile some language to another. Hardly a similarity that makes them very close.

Actually I would appreciate TypeScript implementation on top of Coffee (or the other way around, whichever would be simpler). There is a dialect of CS that supports contracts (you really, really should start using contracts anyway), but that's yet another thing that cannot hope to replace static verification of certain things in programs.

You're absolutely right. I'm an C# dev who switched to JavaScript stack and using TypeScript already for 5-6 months. It was just a first-look description for the TypeScript.

Btw, TypeScript also aiming to fix context problem so in callbacks 'this' keyword is always related to parent class.

`this` being dynamically bound is a feature, it's broken as intended. You can always `bind` a function to remedy this if it's a problem for you.

Why would it be a feature? It is almost never the desired outcome, thus a terrible default.

I disagree. 1. Coffeescript is far from ugly, and also not particularly similar to Ruby :p 2. Typescript includes types and brackets. Coffeescript does not. 3. Icedcoffescript includes async/defer keywords. I include this last point only as a result of a personal perspective that if you're going to use coffeescript, you might as well use icedcoffeescript.

I'm sorry, I'm not a Ruby developer and hope never would :) From my prospect - all languages, which has no brackets are ugly and simular to ruby.

Btw, based on typescript discussions, they are going to implement async/await functionality too.

It's all what you're used to reading. If all you've been staring at are various curly-brace languages then of course you're going to prefer that.

I was primarily a curly-brace developer for 10 years, but changed my mind after a few years of Python, Ruby and Lua. Now I actually think these languages look better than the curly-brace family.

For me, the stereotypical CoffeeScript experience applies: Easy to write, hard to read.

async/await is on their roadmap, though I'd estimate about a year before it'll be in a stable version (I wouldn't be surprised if it'll be available on a feature branch much sooner, but with lower expectation of stability).