cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 天前Why indeedlemmy.mlimagemessage-square148fedilinkarrow-up11.34Kcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.34KimageWhy indeedlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 天前message-square148fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarestetech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·1 天前I’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 天前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.
minus-squareLifter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up8·23 小时前I think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
minus-squareNoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 小时前Ok, 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.