cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square193linkfedilinkarrow-up11.54Karrow-down127cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.51Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agomessage-square193linkfedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up11·1 year agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·1 year agoExcept… the compilation step doesn’t add type safety to JS. As an aside, type safety hasn’t been something I truly miss in JS, despite how often it’s mentioned.
minus-squareLifterlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·1 year agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoOk, that could be true. I assumed they meant the “building” phase that some frameworks go through.
I’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
Except… the compilation step doesn’t add type safety to JS.
As an aside, type safety hasn’t been something I truly miss in JS, despite how often it’s mentioned.
I think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
Ok, that could be true. I assumed they meant the “building” phase that some frameworks go through.