Question: Is the team open to JS-Doc tags being added for better IDE experience.

[edmund-munday]

Describe the bug or issue here…
Not a bug, but a question. I'm a big fan of the team's attitude towards Typescript ;) - I feel like what you guys do here with pure JS is a great example of what's possible.

However, there are some genuinely great developer experience / onboarding benefits to having JS Doc tags for function params / responses, especially considering you guys have already implemented proper models for all your domain entities.

It basically gives you all the DevEx things people rave about TypeScript, with none of the "tax", because it's all just vanilla JS.

I'd be curious about doing some of the tagging myself as a way of learning how the editor works in-detail, but I obviously don't want to waste my time if it's something the team isn't interested in having in the project.

[Betree]

+1 on this one. While I respect your views on Typescript (I suppose OP is referring to this) one can't deny that types can greatly help library consumers understand what they're playing with, especially in cases like Trix where there's very little documentation available.

If maintainers are not interested in JSDoc, I guess the alternative is to add the package on https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped.