cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor · 2 days agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square192fedilinkarrow-up11.44Karrow-down124cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.41Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor · 2 days agomessage-square192fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·1 day 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 day 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-up8·1 day agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·13 hours 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.