alt Hacker NewsA big step in the right direction, but I still don't like the API, here's why: Especially in JavaScript where I often share a lot of code between the client and the server and therefore also transfer data between them, I like to strictly separate data from logic. What i mean by this is that all my data is plain JSON and no class instances or objects that have function properties, so that I can serialize/deserialize it easily.
This is not the case for Temporal objects. Also, the temporal objects have functions on them, which, granted, makes it convenient to use, but a pain to pass it over the wire.
I'd clearly prefer a set of pure functions, into which I can pass data-only temporal objects, quite a bit like date-fns did it.
Replies
This is a real pain point and I run into the same tension in systems where data crosses serialization boundaries constantly. The prototype-stripping problem you're describing with JSON.parse/stringify is a specific case of a more general issue: rich domain objects don't survive wire transfer without a reconstitution step.
That said, I think the Temporal team made the right call here. Date-time logic is one of those domains where the "bag of data plus free functions" approach leads to subtle bugs because callers forget to pass the right context (calendar system, timezone) to the right function. Binding the operations to the object means the type system can enforce that a PlainDate never accidentally gets treated as a ZonedDateTime. date-fns is great but it can't give you that.
The serialization issue is solvable at the boundary. If you're using tRPC or similar, a thin transform layer that calls Temporal.Whatever.from() on the way in and .toString() on the way out is pretty minimal overhead. Same pattern people use with Decimal types or any value object that doesn't roundtrip through JSON natively. Annoying, sure, but the alternative is giving up the type safety that makes the API worth having in the first place.
Updating JSON.parse() to automatically create Temporal objects (from what shape of JSON value?) without a custom reviver would be a step too far, in my opinion.
This is effectively no different from Date:
serialize: date.toJSON()
deserialize: new Date(jsonDate)
serialize: instant.toJSON()
deserialize: Temporal.Instant.from(jsonDate)I'm with you on this. I worked on a big Temporal project briefly and I was really turned off by how much of the codebase was just rote mapping properties from one layer to the next.
All Temporal objects are easily (de)serializable, though. `.toString` and `Temporal.from` work great.
> Especially in JavaScript where I often share a lot of code between the client and the server and therefore also transfer data between them, I like to strictly separate data from logic
Which makes me wonder how it'll look like when interfacing with WASM. Better than Date?
It should still be possible to continue using date-fns (or a similar lib) to suit your preference, right?
This was an intentional design decision. We wanted to make sure all the temporal types could be serialize/deserializable, but as you mentioned, you couldn't implicitly go back to the object you started with as JSON.parse doesn't support that.
Instead the onus is on the developer to re-create the correct object they need on the other side. I don't believe this is problematic because if you know you're sending a Date, DateTime, MonthDay, YearMonth type from one side, then you know what type to rebuild from the ISO string on the other. Having it be automatic could be an issue if you receive unexpected values and are now dealing with the wrong types.
There is an example here in the docs of a reviver being used for Temporal.Instant https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/instant.html#toJSON