cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square169fedilinkarrow-up11.28Karrow-down123cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.26Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agomessage-square169fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squareTeamAssimilation@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up9·15 hours agoYou know we’ve reached peak bloat and stupidity when JavaScript web apps have a compilation step, and I don’t mean JIT.
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·14 hours agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·14 hours 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-squareLifter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up7·12 hours agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
You know we’ve reached peak bloat and stupidity when JavaScript web apps have a compilation step, and I don’t mean JIT.
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