@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 1 month agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square207fedilinkarrow-up11.55Karrow-down126cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.52Karrow-down1imageWhy indeedlemmy.ml@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 1 month agomessage-square207fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink11•1 month agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink1•1 month 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@[email protected]linkfedilink9•1 month agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink2•1 month 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.