JavaScript/TypeScript chapter is quite outdated

[egpbos]

JavaScript/TypeScript chapter is quite outdated

[jspaaks]

Can we do without any JS/TS content in the guide? If so, I'd say delete it all

[suvayu]

If I may - I think what would be sufficient is a set of resources to get an already experienced programmer up to speed relatively easily. For example today I am sitting next to Stefan, and he quickly pointed me to a testing framework (jest), some comments about treatment of types between JS & TS, etc, and that was quite helpful.

Maybe I should keep track of the things that helps me, and that can serve as a starting template.

[egpbos]

There was an actual question yesterday from Suvayu who was looking for a good up-to-date JS/TS guide, so there does seem to be some market for it. Maybe we don't need to write such a guide ourselves, though.

I guess the possible actions I see are:

1. Delete the chapter.
2. Replace the chapter with references to good external guides (required action: finding good guides).
3. Update the chapter (required action: find someone who wants to own the chapter and has time to do it).

Any candidates for 2 and 3? Maybe @ctwhome, @ewan-escience or @dmijatovic? Otherwise, like with the Java chapter, it's probably best to remove it, indeed.

[jspaaks]

Also,

4. Employ a TechLead who knows what tooling is there, how to apply existing tooling, and when to use what

[egpbos]

Good to hear! Sitting down with an expert beats reading a guide anyway, imho, but it's probably different for everyone (and it's not always easy to find the experts).

Jest and some comments about types are present in the current Guide chapter, although I also see that Jest is just the fourth of 4 possible testing framework suggestions; are those others still recommended as well? Should we emphasize Jest and deemphasize the others?

Also, possibly the specific commands that are described for using typing are outdated, maybe someone could check those, or just remove them and point to guides of relevant tools which probably explain things better anyway?