18
Lyniven
2y

Learnt typescript, didn't knew that it's Microsoft

Comments
  • 7
    Why do you regret learning something that actually can help you a lot just because its from some big company you "don't like" ?
  • 4
    Sure, Microsoft can go suck a dick, but typescript is a descent language
  • 3
    @byte same reason we don’t write papers about the ‘amazing’ medical research that took place in auschwitz. I don’t care if they cured cancer.
  • 5
    @runfrodorun that's gave us a different type of education, still helpful in someway

    And for TS, its just a better JS.
    Google even uses it in its Angular framework.
    Why do you hate it, just because of its origins.
    That's what started the whole Auschwitz medical program.
  • 0
    @byte not sure I understand what you’re saying, but profiting off of something immoral is something I’m not willing to do under any circumstances.
  • 3
    @runfrodorun TS is open source so it's not profitable for Microsoft
    They may make money in immorta ways (we all hate that) but that doesn't change the fact that TS is a good language
    And the hate towards it just because it was conceived by some corporation is immoral in itself
  • 6
    I seriously cannot understand how anybody could regret learning TypeScript.

    It has a huge positive impact on productivity and helps you avoid a lot of errors before you even execute it.

    @runfrodorun I respect your opinion, but your analogy with medical research in auschwitz is not an argument, these two things are not comparable at all.
  • 3
    @runfrodorun Godwin’s Law in three comments. Well played.
  • 0
    @byte the auschwitz research could be open source too. Doesn’t matter. Microsoft stamped out a lot of better companies 20 years ago, with great profit comes great power and with great power comes many great things. I just don’t care how great it is in this case. Open source != automatically good.
  • 1
    For the record people, the reason I’m offering extreme comparisons is less to compare the idea to nazis, as much as it is to show that history and origin matter. Pretending like they don’t because a technology is not too bad is ignorant imo. I thought that would be obvious from my posts. You may remember another quote I say often in response to ‘operating systems are just a choice... what’s wrong with choosing windows?’ To which I commonly respond ‘some people choose heroin’

    Make sense? Common knowledge does not make correct knowledge.
  • 0
    @g-m-f again I think you missed my point with the comparison. I’m not saying Microsoft are nazis (though incidentally I do believe that) however I seem to recall somebody asking a stupid question of the persuasion: “why do you hate x, it’s good?”

    Let me give you another example: somebody says “what’s wrong with java, it gets the job done?” To which I answer rhetorically “what’s wrong with nuclear holocaust, it gets the job done?”

    Example: “why does everyone have a problem with me choosing Windows, it’s my choice?” Ans: “some people choose heroin”

    Example: “what’s wrong with google? Gmail is free” ans: “committing suicide is free as well”

    What is the point of this?

    Ex 1: is not comparing java with nuclear holocaust, it suggests that it is foolish to believe that “getting the job done” universally qualifies as adequate criteria

    Ex 2: does not compare drug use and os choice as you may suggest, rather it suggests that asserting freedom of choice proves no merit, and that many people choose many things on a daily basis both good and bad

    Ex 3: were not comparing google with suicide here. The quotation demonstrates that free does not constitute adequate criteria because there exists a counter example

    As with the original statement, stands for itself: for the third and final time, does not compare the holocaust with typescript as you may suggest, what it does is it suggests that producing a good technology is insufficient criteria to warrant selecting it, as the young man earlier seemed to suggest

    If none of these things mattered, I’d go out and get a gmail, get an android phone, download windows (that’s a lie, it just sucks even if it didn’t suffer from moral problems) and probably do a whole lot of things differently

    Hey, if you are irony impaired I can see if there is an MIT open courseware on rhetoric practices.
  • 1
    Essentially the argument boils down to this: in an extreme case, you would never dream of using nazi research and benefiting off of people suffering. Even though this case is entirely different, is it so hard to believe that having good tech (typescript) is insufficient; and imo it is not a good tech...

    Basically somebody asserts that there’s no reason not to like typescript because it’s “good” and I provide a counter example because that logic has a CRITICAL assumption.
  • 1
    @g-m-f that’s not an argument because there’s nothing to quibble about. I suppose you could say that if you’re trying to be funny in the absurd?

    Let me try and explain this one more time...

    People can believe and think whatever they want. But they should not allow a narrow band of evidence prop up their self assurance.

    The examples that I provided have a connotation that the person believes that they are in the rhetorical superior, but they missed the grizzly bear in their blind spot. Socks have hardly anything at stake.

    If someone is saying “why don’t you use gmail because it’s free?” The implication being they couldn’t think of any reasons, and with a lack of reasons, assume free is adequate criteria. Instead of argue with them whatsoever, you just say “suicide is free too” it makes them double take because it’s ridiculously dramatic, it is a simple fact that is trivially true, but yet dismisses the idea that free === good.

    Socks I’m not really sure what to say about it that is meaningful. There has to be a meaningful parallel. It doesn’t make any sense for people to ask “why did you cross the street” and for your eyes to start twitching and ask “why don’t you use nazi research?” That doesn’t make sense.
  • 0
    @g-m-f this is the same principal that is used in higher mathematics proofs.

    Suppose you have a set and you want to prove that it is non-empty. You think of the dumbest stupidest most obvious thing that you can assert is a member of the set just by virtue of its properties.

    So if we have a set of all free things, there are two possibilities, that they are all good or not all good. You come up with something that is very obviously not good, and assert that it is free and there, you have just proven that not all free things are good, which is the case you want to make, because if somebody’s argument is stupid enough to rely on the critical assumption that all free things are good it is not hard to knock it down.

    That’s what I reserve these comments for.
  • 2
    @g-m-f I can’t believe I’ve written almost 6000 characters about rhetoric technique in a rant about typescript
  • 1
    @g-m-f it’s not too late if you’re up for a little friendly abuse and racism.
  • 3
    I agree with that ts is a good language that can improve productivity, but i won't use it.

    Also thanks for your aguments, was pleasant to read, i bursted out laughing too
  • 1
    @g-m-f do Microsoft tested win XP startup sound on kittens?
  • 3
    But seriously. TS is one of the best things that happened to JS.
  • 0
    And the part that pissed me off most was the global typescript package creates a config dir right in home
    ~/.typescript I think, or was it without dot
    Not even hidden or was it called Microsoft
    Can't remember

    Put your shitty config on ~/.config/.crapcrap
  • 1
    @metaory my ~/ is crowded with those. Lot of programs do it, it's common practice to go to ~/.yournamehere with configs or even deps.
  • 0
    @runfrodorun I'm interested in your more detailed opinion on typescript.

    I understand that you are not willing to use it as mentioned in your second comment but other than that it would be very interesting to see if you have other strong arguments against "the use of typescript compared to JavaScript (doesn't matter which ECMAscript version)".
  • 1
    @PonySlaystation if I’m being honest I don’t know very much about it. I just know it compiled into JavaScript and allows you to think of the problem in a modular way instead of having one big barf of JS.

    Thing is, I’m against active content of any type of website, I block all JS, even browsed with lynx for a while. One point I made a vi extension that allowed me to browse with my editor and curl. As more and more content is delivered through bullshit like node.js I’ve been disowning more and more services. I’ve gotten rid of online banking, 401k, everything. Gone back to the old way of snail mail.

    Proprietary code run automatically on my system when I least expect it? Hell no.

    And worst of all, 99% of the use case of JavaScript is to make things look pretty and be responsive. When all we really need at the end of the day is to get the damn text out of the markup, maybe submit a form here and there. I know I’m not the average case here but I think web dev has gotten so ridiculously complex for what it is used for it puts a bad taste in my mouth.

    As for what’s wrong with typescript specifically? It’s a religious abomination to use Microsoft products. If Microsoft came out with their own BSD distribution tomorrow morning I still wouldn’t touch it. That’s just how I feel. I also feel that this will inevitably get its own JIT and engine, and they’re going to try to take over the JS dominated internet with it. Just you wait, it’s coming.
Add Comment