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
-
@rEaL-jAsE "you can't go wrong with normal JavaScript" What?! This may be the funniest thing anyone has ever said about JS.
-
@rEaL-jAsE don't take it badly, it's just that this is the exact reason typescript was developed :)
-
@rEaL-jAsE no thanks, I prefer statically typed languages, especially when it comes to larger codesets
Why have to add extra runtime checks and such to ensure the data is what you expect it to be when you can have the compiler do it for you.
I also like being able to know what types a method takes/returns without needing to look up the documentation. -
Adding to my previous comment, the problem is that this codebase is full of "wrong" code that shouldn't compile from like, a type checking perspective... but it does, and I'll give props to the people who wrote it in the sense that like, they clearly know how the typescript compiler will output code well enough to know how to make this work...
-
@spongessuck Thats what a global variable is for though?
-
@spongessuck I hope they're not XD but who knows with this codebase
Thanks I hate it, I hate the fact that typescript will still transpile this. Not an exact copy of the code I'm working with, but close enough. Also this code targets es3, but we generate tsconfigs that say es5 (which don't actually get used) which leads me to believe that we generate them soley for the benefit of ides, and because if they said es3 the ide would show even more errors
rant