cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 10 months agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square170fedilinkarrow-up11.4Karrow-down124cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.37Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 10 months agomessage-square170fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareTeamAssimilation@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up9·10 months 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-up9·10 months agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·10 months 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-up7·10 months agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·10 months agoOk, that could be true. I assumed they meant the “building” phase that some frameworks go through.
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
Ok, that could be true. I assumed they meant the “building” phase that some frameworks go through.