cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 days agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square201fedilinkarrow-up11.48Karrow-down126
arrow-up11.46Karrow-down1external-linkWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 days agomessage-square201fedilink
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up11·9 days agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·9 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-up9·9 days agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·8 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.