cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 14 days agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square194fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 14 days agomessage-square194fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·13 days agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·13 days 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-up0·13 days agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·12 days 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.