3 ms·
> “JavaScript doesn’t do my weird fetish” (e.g. type annotations) Interesting that the author thinks type annotations are just a weird fetish.
by connordoner 4y ago
> “JavaScript doesn’t do my weird fetish” (e.g. type annotations)
Interesting that the author thinks type annotations are just a weird fetish.
- eyelidlessness 4y agoI don’t read it that way at all, FWIW. I read it as using static types as an obvious example of language features which have been shoehorned onto JS because the language doesn’t provide a thing code authors strongly wish it did. I would read it the same way if the example had been JSX, and I quite like all of static types, TypeScript’s type system semantics specifically, and JSX as a general purpose way to define out of band DSLs.
- cxr 4y agoIt's an odd example for other reasons, given the context. It's situated in an essay that laments that performance and accessibility are underappreciated. The next thing the author says is, "Were I to guess, trying to break the gravity of platform limitations doesn't help with the physics-based limitations like batteries and electrons." In reality, eschewing with overly dynamic language constructs and code patterns is how to make things friendlier to low-power (in both senses of the word) devices... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iiEDtpy6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iiEDtpy6I>