Is this project abandoned?

[jbrantly]

@andreypopp @jgoz It seems like this project has been abandoned since there has been no activity in some time and it does not work with the last two stable TypeScript releases (1.5 and 1.6). However, due to the somewhat canonical name "typescript-loader" it's still first in Google results which causes confusion as people try it, find it doesn't work, and have to go find another loader.

ts-loader was created around the same time as this loader and has been actively maintained since. I recently moved the repository to the TypeStrong organization. TypeStrong consolidates various TypeScript tooling efforts under a community of maintainers so that there's less chance of projects going abandoned.

With this in mind, I wanted to reach out and see if you would be willing to:

• Add a deprecation notice to the README and point to ts-loader
• Possibly allow ts-loader to be renamed to typescript-loader by assigning the NPM package to me

If you would like to deprecate but still participate in development we would be happy to add you to the TypeStrong organization.

Thanks!

[jgoz]

@jbrantly I think I'm listed as a contributor purely out of courtesy, because I gave up the typescript-loader name to this project a while ago (after Pete Hunt gave it up to me). This decision belongs to @andreypopp because it is purely his project, as far as I'm concerned.

For what it's worth, your proposal makes sense to me and I would recommend that we focus efforts on a single loader. My choice would be to focus on ts-loader too and rename it to typescript-loader.

If you would like to deprecate but still participate in development we would be happy to add you to the TypeStrong organization.

That's very generous of you. My company is diving head-first into TypeScript, but for various technical reasons, we are not using any webpack loader at all, so I may not be a very valuable contributor at this point in time.

[andreypopp]

Totally agree, I can transfer npm package and deprecate this repo.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 18:55 John Gozde notifications@github.com wrote:

@jbrantly https://github.com/jbrantly I think I'm listed as a
contributor purely out of courtesy, because I gave up the
typescript-loader name to this project a while ago (after Pete Hunt gave
it up to me). This decision belongs to @andreypopp
https://github.com/andreypopp because it is purely his project, as far
as I'm concerned.

For what it's worth, your proposal makes sense to me and I would recommend
that we focus efforts on a single loader. My choice would be to focus on
ts-loader too and rename it to typescript-loader.

If you would like to deprecate but still participate in development we
would be happy to add you to the TypeStrong organization.

That's very generous of you. My company is diving head-first into
TypeScript, but for various technical reasons, we are not using any webpack
loader at all, so I may not be a very valuable contributor at this point in
time.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#27 (comment)
.

[basarat]

because I gave up the typescript-loader name to this project a while ago (after Pete Hunt gave it up to me).

Talk about full circle .... Pete Hunt wrote this sitting next to me (me just being impressed by his skills .... but helping a bit with the TypeScript API) at a Melbourne dev conference 🌹 That was the first time I heard of webpack :)

[jgoz]

Talk about full circle .... Pete Hunt wrote this sitting next to me (me just being impressed by his skills .... but helping a bit with the TypeScript API) at a Melbourne dev conference That was the first time I heard of webpack :)

Well, it sounds like the name will end up in good hands :)

[Jaans]

If I understand the above correctly, this repo is considered deprecated in favour of ts-loader (https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-loader)?

Going by my own measure of effort trying to select the most suitable WebPack loader for TypeScript, it would really be helpful if something to the effect of "This has been deprecated in favour of ...(with link)" could be put on the ReadMe.md of this repo.

Also, if anyone can offer additional guidance on how to determine which on of the these we should use, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm struggling to see why the one might be better than the other.

• ts-loader
• awesome-typescript-loader
• webpack-typescript

Thanks!

[jbrantly]

(I'm the ts-loader maintainer)

@s-panferov gave some guidance of the difference between ts-loader and awesome-typescript-loader here. In my own words, it really boils down to complexity vs speed. ts-loader offloads a lot to the TypeScript compiler itself and the code is therefore a fraction of the size. ts-loader also maintains a decently sized test suite (every new feature or bug gets a test) which has been invaluable in catching regressions before they're published. In short, my focus for ts-loader has been more on correctness and "just works" than on speed. awesome-typescript-loader has written a lot of custom code to make sure compilation is as fast as possible. Both projects are roughly equivalent otherwise. We tend to borrow features and I think both projects are slowly converging toward each other (ts-loader has gotten faster, awesome-typescript-loader has started a test suite).

I can't speak much for webpack-typescript. It's a relative latecomer and hasn't seemed to pick up much traction.

[Jaans]

Thank you for that. It's actually really helpful. Given that, we would - for our purposes - prioritise ts-loader over awesome-typescript-loader.

[ghost]

👍 for renaming ts-loader to typescript-loader (or make it as a fallback).

Simple, if you use "tslint", then loader is "tslint-loader". So, when you use "typescript", the loader should also be "typescript-loader" - less confusing then "ts-loader".

Especially if @jgoz agrees on doing so, what do you think @jbrantly?

[jonjaques]

@andreypopp I think we could safely say that is the case, don't you think? I'm not using TS daily anymore so I know I don't have any bandwidth for this right now. Plus seems like there are stronger alternatives.