3 ms·
Totally agree. I'm always confused why people eg buy in to TypeScript, when for me the entire point of using JavaScript is its portability and ubiquity. If you'
by tannhaeuser 7y ago
Totally agree. I'm always confused why people eg buy in to TypeScript, when for me the entire point of using JavaScript is its portability and ubiquity. If you're willing to accept a build/compilation step, then there are much, much better languages out there IMO, rather than slowly shoehorning weakly-typed languages to become "more like Java", and creating guaranteed portability and lock-in issues along the way.
I never understood why F/OSS didn't kick in to provide a portable runtime for VB or classic BASIC. There is/was something like GWA Basic, wasn't there? At least I'm not aware of a formal language spec for (classic) BASIC from the likes of ISO.
- pjmlp 7y agoThere are several VB-like FOSS clones, Gambas being the most well known.
- miffy900 7y ago> I'm always confused why people eg buy in to TypeScript, when for me the entire point of using JavaScript is its portability and ubiquity Javascript's ubiquity and portability does not change the fact that on its own, it is a pretty bad programming language. There are a plethora of reasons to choose Typescript, most prominently is the much much better development experience Typescript give you. I'm not sure if you've used Typescript, but using Typescript still gives you the portability and ubiquity of javascript because all it does is compile down to Javascript.