@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 29 days agoWhy indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square200fedilinkarrow-up11.54Kcross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.54KimageWhy indeedlemmy.ml@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 29 days agomessage-square200fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink11•29 days agoI’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink4•29 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@[email protected]linkfedilink9•29 days agoI think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGroundlinkfedilink2•28 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.