create-svelte: Add descriptions to select options

[gtm-nayan]

closes #5217

Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
• This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests

• Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint and pnpm check

Changesets

• If your PR makes a change that should be noted in one or more packages' changelogs, generate a changeset by running pnpm changeset and following the prompts. All changesets should be patch until SvelteKit 1.0

Here's how the descriptions look

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f3ae911

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
create-svelte	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[benmccann]

I believe it's not just annotations, but the actual source is written in TypeScript

Suggested change

	title: 'With TypeScript annotations',
	title: 'Source is written TypeScript',

[benmccann]

might need a bit more explanation of what this is. but hopefully this isn't too long

Suggested change

	title: 'With JavaScript comments (JSDoc)',
	title: 'Runs TypeScript's type checking against JavaScript comments (JSDoc)',

[gtm-nayan]

Guess it could be put into the descriptions, how's this?

[Mlocik97]

I think it would be better if it would be at same line... now it looks like another option.

[benmccann]

I agree it looks nicer on the same line

[gtm-nayan]

That's coming from how the prompts library handles descriptions, if they're too long to fit on one line they start from the next, so it has to be put in the title

[Mlocik97]

Type-Checked JavaScript - check for types in JS with JSDoc.
TypeScript - check for types with TS.
None - Don't check for types.

[Mlocik97]

Or how it was in #5221 (comment) but shortcut JS and TS, and maybe replace last part with and run TSC to check types.

[gtm-nayan]

Turns out we can cheat a bit with kleur to make parts of the title look like the description to avoid the auto-wrap behavior.

Ended up with this, which I think looks nice and readable.

[Rich-Harris]

How about this?

[dummdidumm]

Another one:

Do you want type checking?

• Yes, using JavaScript with JSDoc comments
• Yes, using TypeScript
• No

[Rich-Harris]

The reason I proposed

Use TypeScript?
> Yes, using JSDoc comments
  Yes, using TypeScript syntax
  No

is because 'JSDoc comments' by itself is too vague. We're specifically using the TypeScript flavour/subset of JSDoc (allowing us to e.g. import .d.ts files, which I don't believe is something JSDoc understands by itself), and we're configuring TypeScript with a jsconfig.json file. I don't think we can do an adequate job of communicating what this option actually does without putting the word 'TypeScript' front and center.

[gtm-nayan]

"Use TypeScript?" by itself would likely be interpreted as the TypeScript language itself.

Add TypeScript's type checking?
> Yes, using JavaScript with JSDoc comments
  Yes, using TypeScript syntax
  No

[Mlocik97]

Use TSC (TypeScript Compiler) to check for types?
> Yes, using JavaScript with JSDoc comments
  Yes, using TypeScript
  No

another option.

[Rich-Harris]

I tweaked @gtm-nayan's suggestion in #5221 (comment) very slightly and committed it, so that the diff is once again legible. I think we're in a good place so I'll approve the PR, but will leave it open in case we want to bikeshed further