cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square166fedilinkarrow-up11.26Karrow-down123cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.24Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agomessage-square166fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·11 hours agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·11 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-up7·9 hours agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
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