@cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev • 12 days agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square200fedilinkarrow-up11.53Kcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.53KimageWhy indeedlemmy.ml@cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev • 12 days agomessage-square200fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-square@stetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink11•11 days agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink4•11 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-square@Lifter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilink8•11 days agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink2•11 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.