Typescript

Comments

• Limeey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If compiled languages bother you, then you’re gonna love assembly.

  source

  • Xabis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Asm is compiled too.

    Gotta bust out the hex editor.

    source

    • Shareni@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Nah, just get butterflies

      source
    • frezik@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      An assembler doesn’t have any of the interesting parts of a compiler.

      source
    • bruhduh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You can write asm in hex too grantmestrength.github.io/…/intel8080.html

      source
  • 30p87@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’d rather read ASM than … that random crap.

    source
• rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That looks like a minified webpack (or something similar) output, not a transpiled typescript output. Also the code is not valid.

  source
• ptz@dubvee.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You should see what scary C code turns into (shudders)

  source

  • SomethingBurger@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I looked at it once and was scared for my life. I can’t imagine what it would look like once compiled.

    source
• excel@lemmy.megumin.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  What this shows is how terrible raw JS is, when all of this crap is required to fix all of the edge cases and make things actually work the way it’s supposed to.

  source
• demesisx@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I vastly prefer Purescript despite it being the road less traveled. Typescript is just a fake-ish type system on top of JavaScript. But Purescript goes MUCH further in the mission of purity and code safety.

  source

  • lightnegative@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Purescript is like a modern Haskell. Completely different programming paradigm, much less accessible to your average JS developer just wanting to tighten up their code without having to learn category theory

    source

    • demesisx@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t know category theory and I use it every single day. Suit yourself, though.

      source
  • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Have you tried Scala.js ?

    source

    • demesisx@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I have.

      I’d probably be more interested in it if I were being forced by my day job to work in the JVM. I happen to be in a situation where I am my own boss working on projects completely alone and the tech I pick comes from months of wasting time making perfect the enemy of good. I know that raises quite a few red flags but I can’t help the way that they made me. Haha 🥴

      From what I’ve gathered from Joseph Gordon Bell at the (IMO best software engineering podcast ever) Co-Recursive podcast, Scala sacrifices some of the purity and safety by its dependence on the the Java cargo cult. Partly, this is also a drawback of Purescript for me (since it’s intended to compile to JavaScript) but Purescript is starting to be able to escape that fate. Also, I’m a HUGE fan of Haskell syntax.

      From your perspective, what pros and cons do you see if I were comparing Scala to Purescript?

      Ps. The one that is actually really making me take notice lately is OCaml for the browser.

      source
• Vast_Emptiness@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Idk man. I use python ;)

  source
• baggachipz@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Typescript is verbose training wheels for JavaScript, change my mind

  source
• moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Image

  image source

  source