3 ms·
I did mention it will look perfectly fine to someone here. [ and what better, to someone's nickname is Gigachad :) ] But if you had a sea of functions that look
by deafpolygon 4y ago
I did mention it will look perfectly fine to someone here. [ and what better, to someone's nickname is Gigachad :) ] But if you had a sea of functions that looked just like that.. it'd be hard to pick things out without syntax highlighting.
- Gigachad 4y agoHow can we actually prove this statement though? I work with TS, Ruby, and Rust daily and I honestly can't think of a single time I had any problem reading Rust once I understood the language. But saying "works for me" is just as anecdotal as "doesn't work for me". There needs to be a better way of talking about the problem to progress on this.
- eddsh1994 4y agoWhen the function name & types are harder to grok than the body I think it’s an issue. Looking at you, TypeScript.
- bmacho 4y agoFor me it is an issue as well, but it doesn't seem to be an issue for the others. I strongly prefer Haskell/math notation for denoting the types of functions, but all the new languages choose other syntax.
- Gigachad 4y agoI don't think the syntax of TS is the problem. It's that people are trying to define types for massively dynamic JS that is inherently hard to express as a type.
- deafpolygon 4y agoYou can run a survey.