1.0 release blog post draft #6564
Conversation
mario-guerra
requested review from
bterlson,
markcowl,
allenjzhang,
timotheeguerin,
witemple-msft,
chrisradek and
AlitzelMendez
as code owners
|
No changes needing a change description found. |
mario-guerra
force-pushed
the
tsp_1_0_blog
branch
from
07b72b0 to
9cb702a
Compare
|
You can try these changes here
|
| slug: 2025-03-31-typespec-1-0-release | ||
| title: "Introducing TypeSpec 1.0: APIs at the Speed of Thought" | ||
| image: ./TypeSpec_1_0_release.png | ||
| description: "TypeSpec 1.0 is here! Accelerate your API development by automatically generating server-side code, client SDKs, schemas, and documentation directly from concise API models, enabling you to focus on innovation rather than implementation details." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the target to release that on the 31st? If so this feels deceiving if we say 1.0 is here but we only release the rc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if I called it TypeSpec 1.0-RC and made clear it was a release candidate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah Im fine with that, also happy to republish again/update the article when we we move out of the rc
|
|
||
| Imagine building a "to do" service API. With TypeSpec, you start by defining your data models and operations in a concise and human-readable format. For example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```typescript |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ```typescript | |
| ```tsp |
website/src/content/blog/2025-03-31-typespec-1-0-release/workflow-diagram-full.png
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| ### Client-side Code Generation | ||
|
|
||
| In addition to server-side code, TypeSpec can generate client-side SDKs for multiple languages, including TypeScript, Python, C#, and Java, with support for additional languages like Rust in development. These SDKs simplify integration for developers by abstracting API calls and ensuring consistency with the API specification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we say TypeScript in the client-side code generation but JavaScript in service-side code generation? I want to confirm that is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, do we want to say SDKs, libraries, or SDK libraries? (SDKs are often a collection of things)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The client emitter is currently named typespec-ts and the server emitter is named http-server-javascript, so there's a discrepancy here. I'll confirm with the team on what the emitters are actually producing and ensure they are named consistently for the release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And, I think I like "libraries" over "SDKs", I'll change that wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a missing a section on other emitters. I.e., it comes with an OpenAPI 3 emitter, other emitters (even if they are still in preview), and an experimental emitter framework to allow you to create your own emitters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch, I'll add a section that covers this.
|
On the PR website view, the PNG and text font size ratio seems off. I think maybe resizing the png would bring better proportion. |
|
|
||
| > **TypeSpec-generated SDKs ensure seamless integration with your backend, since everything is derived from the same single source of truth.** | ||
|
|
||
| For example, a generated TypeScript SDK might allow you to interact with your `todo` API like this: |
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| TypeSpec ensures that your API implementation stays perfectly aligned with your specification, saving you time and effort. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is great showcasing the TypeSpec client/service code gen. Should we have step by step tutorial (linked by separate from this blog post) that folks can follow along and get hands-on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dina is working on that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on second thought, the content Dina is working on won't be available till Build. I'll see what I can put together this week.
mario-guerra
force-pushed
the
tsp_1_0_blog
branch
from
6e9a6c4 to
4727e8a
Compare
Putting this up for review, DO NOT COMMIT