5 ms·

> typescript Well, the problem is rather, that JavaScript is a pretty bad language (nobody claimed otherwise, when it was designed in 10 days), so that using s

by anyfoo 3y ago

> typescript Well, the problem is rather, that JavaScript is a pretty bad language (nobody claimed otherwise, when it was designed in 10 days), so that using something like TypeScript makes it much better. Unfortunately your browser understands JavaScript, not TypeScript. That's the immense tragedy of web development: It's a giant pile of excrement, because it's built on several things that were never meant to be what they are used for today. It's also why I left a long time ago, and never looked back.

twism 3y ago
curious as to what you left it for that doesnt have this compile step
- anyfoo 3y ago
  I didn’t leave it because of the compile steps, but because the extra layers, despite all their downsides, were far from able to hide the underlying impedance mismatch. I left over a decade ago and went back to low level kernel programming.
  - noizejoy 3y ago
    It’s good for everyone that different individuals have different likes and resulting priorities. Good that you found the one that makes you happier. And with any luck your preferred niche isn’t too overcrowded, so you don’t suffer from those negative side effects.
    - anyfoo 3y ago
      I did not intend to shit on web developers, by the way. It's not their fault, they just have to live with it. I just lament the history that lead to what they ultimately have on their plate. Early "web development" went tremendously wrong, owing partially due to the fact that the "hypertext" markup protocol and markup language were meant to be used in an entirely different way, and partially due to early hacks leading to early results in terms of "web applications". But those hacks came at the cost of making this layer sandwich in any way sane to begin with. In my opinion, everything else since is an attempt to find a way out of that mess. I was there when the web happened, though only watching from the side lines. I also remember that there were more fitting approaches early on, but a lot of them suffered under the Internet's explosive growth: Some of the "sane" stuff at least would have needed concerted efforts for plans that have to be executed over time. But the web was already a thing, and people desperately wanted to do certain things with it. The quick hacks for that were available immediately, and they were cool: "Hah, look what I can do. You can now get a travel itinerary through your city's public transport system from the World Wide Web. Isn't that amazing?" (At the time, it was.) I'm not saying you cannot have joy in web development. As you say, it just wasn't for me. For the reasons above.
vlunkr 3y ago
If JavaScript is "a giant pile of excrement," I think that makes TypeScript a polished turd. It's just a superset of JavaScript.
- baq 3y ago
  Yeah typescript is amazing, the javascript below it is made out of evil hacks.
  - vlunkr 3y ago
    This is what I'm saying though. Typescript is just a hack on top of Javascript. The same engine is going to run your code in the browser. For the record, I think Javascript is fine (with some nasty warts), and Typescript is a great addition. The idea that TS is great but JS sucks is silly.
    - anyfoo 3y ago
      > Typescript is just a hack on top of Javascript. Exactly, it makes it "more palpable". > The idea that TS is great but JS sucks is silly. Just to be clear, I absolutely did not say that. Instead, I'd rather agree with your statement that TS only makes things better. But there is only so much it can do in that ecosystem, even if a good type system does notably improve things. Everything that's below that is still what it was.
      - anyfoo 3y ago
        > Exactly, it makes it "more palpable". Typo: Palatable, obviously, not palpable. Too late to edit.
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > Palatable There's no accounting for taste, but... aren't we still taking about polished turds on top of a pile of excrement? "Palatable" is not the word I expected to see in this subthread.

by anyfoo 3y ago

twism 3y ago

curious as to what you left it for that doesnt have this compile step

anyfoo 3y ago
I didn’t leave it because of the compile steps, but because the extra layers, despite all their downsides, were far from able to hide the underlying impedance mismatch. I left over a decade ago and went back to low level kernel programming.
- noizejoy 3y ago
  It’s good for everyone that different individuals have different likes and resulting priorities. Good that you found the one that makes you happier. And with any luck your preferred niche isn’t too overcrowded, so you don’t suffer from those negative side effects.
  - anyfoo 3y ago
    I did not intend to shit on web developers, by the way. It's not their fault, they just have to live with it. I just lament the history that lead to what they ultimately have on their plate. Early "web development" went tremendously wrong, owing partially due to the fact that the "hypertext" markup protocol and markup language were meant to be used in an entirely different way, and partially due to early hacks leading to early results in terms of "web applications". But those hacks came at the cost of making this layer sandwich in any way sane to begin with. In my opinion, everything else since is an attempt to find a way out of that mess. I was there when the web happened, though only watching from the side lines. I also remember that there were more fitting approaches early on, but a lot of them suffered under the Internet's explosive growth: Some of the "sane" stuff at least would have needed concerted efforts for plans that have to be executed over time. But the web was already a thing, and people desperately wanted to do certain things with it. The quick hacks for that were available immediately, and they were cool: "Hah, look what I can do. You can now get a travel itinerary through your city's public transport system from the World Wide Web. Isn't that amazing?" (At the time, it was.) I'm not saying you cannot have joy in web development. As you say, it just wasn't for me. For the reasons above.

vlunkr 3y ago

If JavaScript is "a giant pile of excrement," I think that makes TypeScript a polished turd. It's just a superset of JavaScript.

baq 3y ago
Yeah typescript is amazing, the javascript below it is made out of evil hacks.
- vlunkr 3y ago
  This is what I'm saying though. Typescript is just a hack on top of Javascript. The same engine is going to run your code in the browser. For the record, I think Javascript is fine (with some nasty warts), and Typescript is a great addition. The idea that TS is great but JS sucks is silly.
  - anyfoo 3y ago
    > Typescript is just a hack on top of Javascript. Exactly, it makes it "more palpable". > The idea that TS is great but JS sucks is silly. Just to be clear, I absolutely did not say that. Instead, I'd rather agree with your statement that TS only makes things better. But there is only so much it can do in that ecosystem, even if a good type system does notably improve things. Everything that's below that is still what it was.
    - anyfoo 3y ago
      > Exactly, it makes it "more palpable". Typo: Palatable, obviously, not palpable. Too late to edit.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > Palatable There's no accounting for taste, but... aren't we still taking about polished turds on top of a pile of excrement? "Palatable" is not the word I expected to see in this subthread.