5 ms·
Simply put, compiling code that does not pass the type checking is a waste of cycles, and I have seen footguns in this way. I don’t really see the value in weak
by nawgz 5y ago
Simply put, compiling code that does not pass the type checking is a waste of cycles, and I have seen footguns in this way. I don’t really see the value in weakening your type safety and compiler guarantees in exchange for 100ms compile time.
- Arnavion 5y ago>Simply put, compiling code that does not pass the type checking is a waste of cycles, and I have seen footguns in this way. Nowhere in my comment did I say that.
- nsonha 5y ago> code that does not pass the type checking is a waste of cycles no, have you ever done hot reload in front-end development? When you make a typo on a type definition do you want tsc to bail & the whole application state to be lost? I guess CPU cycles are more valuable than your time? edit: btw tcs does NOT bail, so your argument is moot because the typescript compiler itself "wastes cycles" like that. > weakening your type safety nothing is "weakened" here, what happens is, people can continue to work/test different parts of the codebase without having the full project type-checked out.