|
Why using Typescript, if there's already ECMA6 [^] available in almost all browsers?
|
|
|
|
|
Mysteries over mysteries.
Why would anybody use an interpreter after getting rid of a C64?
Why would someone use something that is compiled to interpreted code?
Why would people merrily reinvent the wheel over and over again?
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Because TypeScript provides much more than what ES6 provides. Also takes care of compilation and fallback to ES5 or lesser.
Quick start · TypeScript[^]
TypeScript is Superset of JavaScript (ES6 too). This simply means that you have everything available in TypeScript which you have in ES6 + more.
Life is a computer program and everyone is the programmer of his own life.
|
|
|
|
|
Because TYPEscript is typed?
And compiles to JavaScript that is available in ALL browsers (and not ALMOST all...)?
Or because a project already used it from a time before ECMA6?
Maybe the customer for that project uses IE that doesn't support anything?
Or because JavaScript is a pile of garbage (even ECMA6) and TypeScript fixes some of that?
Just some guesses, I've never actually worked with TypeScript 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, a "pile of garbage" for the most used language is a bit inappropriate.
I mean, a few can be wrong, but so many? i really don't think so ..
|
|
|
|
|
A whole lot of people listen to Justin Bieber and think he is wonderful. Are they correct as well?
Popular != good
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on ... what the hell has Bieber to do with JavaScript now? .. come on, let's be constructive
|
|
|
|
|
Both are garbage that is popular with a certain sector of the potential market.
Just because something is popular with a subgroup, doesn't mean it is a good product.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Griffs analogy is bloody good.
There's a whole raft of people who think a McDonalds is good food when it most clearly isn't. Just because something has a large user base, qv Smoking, it does not follow that it is any good. Popularity is not the same as Quality. JavaScript is to quality code what McD's is to fine dining.
Argument. Closed.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Bieber? Take it to the Soapbox where it belongs.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Bieber? Take it him to the Soapbox wood chipper where it he belongs.
FTFY!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
There's not mulch I can say. You compost what you like in the lounge - but sticking to puns befits you.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Compost - because a rind is a terrible thing to waste.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Rot are you talking about?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just trying to be a fungi!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Aless Alessio wrote: Well, a "pile of garbage" for the most used language is a bit inappropriate.
Nope[^]. It's only the most used because it's easy to learn and because it's your only choice for the web.
The language has serious design flaws.
Sure, it's easy to crank up a little script and run it in your browser. Unfortunately, it's even easier to introduce subtle and less subtle bugs and write code that's completely not maintainable.
JavaScript gives you a false sense of safety. It's like riding a bike with those little side wheels and then riding head first into a ravine.
But sure, if you think 1 + [1] equals 11 and 1 + ["h"] is NaN (or something like that), go ahead and give JavaScript some praise 
Aless Alessio wrote: I mean, a few can be wrong, but so many? i really don't think so ..
I can give dozens of examples where that was (and is), indeed, the case. Here's one: religions throughout the ages.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote:
JavaScript gives you a false sense of safety. It's like riding a bike with those little side wheels and then riding head first into a ravine.
I like that quote. Captured for sig.
JavaScript gives you a false sense of safety. It's like riding a bike with those little side wheels and then riding head first into a ravine.
Sander Rossel
|
|
|
|
|
Whoohoo! I've never been in a sig before (I think) 
|
|
|
|
|
You've been in one before. Well it is your own, but it is something.
JavaScript gives you a false sense of safety. It's like riding a bike with those little side wheels and then riding head first into a ravine.
Sander Rossel
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's a bit unfair. The examples you listed should demonstrate that JavaScript is not able clean garbage produced by some programmers, not JavaScript in itself is garbage
OK, yes, in somesense, it is, as any untyped language is ...
|
|
|
|
|
You can output garbage in any language, JavaScript just makes it that much more easy than other languages
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: JavaScript gives you a false sense of safety.
Only on the surface... If you are seriously dive in you got shivers...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that gave me multiple wtf's is the arguments object. It's array-like, but not an array (actual bug) and it's shared on the page so passing it to a function does you no good (although I haven't checked if arguments[0] === arguments, but knowing JavaScript that's probaby NaN or some such ).
|
|
|
|
|
Aless Alessio wrote: Why using Typescript, if there's already ECMA6 available in almost all browsers?
Bolded the important bit. Almost isn't good enough in many places. And this[^] table still has an awful lot of red in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Finally a constructive answer.
So far, desktop browsers are pretty much covered. Then i guess that android browser is the biggest missing piece
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
