Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@Oktokolo you can't do much if it's based on JavaScript
-
@iiii
Obviously you can - that implicit union-thing is opt-out now.
They just made the very same mistake, Java did with its implicit nullability too.
And now they can't defult-disable it because there is so much shit out there depending on that misbehavior. -
@iiii Purescript proves you wrong. JS is great compiler target and even the FFI are pleasant
-
@danielstaleiny it's not JavaScript at all. While Typescript is based on JavaScript so much that a valid JavaScript code is a valid typescript code.
-
@iiii if you want javascript, use javascript. If you want better language perhaps look for better language. Typescript is not valid javascript as well as purescript isn't.
with FFI javascript is valid purescript but you need to add type annotation to it.
from this perspective they are the same.
and both need compiler, so if I pay price of a compiler at least the language could be good. Am I right ? -
@danielstaleiny I never said that typescript is a valid JavaScript.
Nowadays......Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
When your code is a mess but still works
So typescript 4.5 beta is out .... holy moly what did those guys smoke? π§π€¨π€ͺ
They keep adding stuff on top, that nobody needs. But they don't fix the stuff that is broken (like emitting broken prefix-paths ...π€¦)
Imho, they should focus on the overall development experience, make it easy an consistent to setup a proper multi-module project with linter, auto-formatter, folder structure, file naming.
And please fix this ugly #private fields - just ignore this mess of a spec and emit TS private fields as #private fields. That's the only logical way. Everything else is BS.
rant
typescript
mess