4 ms·
This is mentioned in the article. The author criticizes this because it means they have to keep the type and the list in sync. I think this is a pretty pedanti
by Touche 10y ago
This is mentioned in the article. The author criticizes this because it means they have to keep the type and the list in sync.
I think this is a pretty pedantic reason to dismiss a language, personally.
- charlieflowers 10y agoMaybe to _dismiss_ a language. But it is a reasonable _criticism_ of the language. I hate those kinds of edge cases between strong and weak typing where the compiler knows something, but you have to express it again. Granted, though, there aren't many languages that can handle that. As far as I can see, it requires compile-time code execution.
- darawk 10y agoIMO that's a pretty good criticism of a language that's supposed to be type-safe, but forces you to break its type safety because its lack of a feature.
- nicops 10y agoAnd it's not like any other language you can choose from for working in the browser is perfect.