3 ms·

The entire industry has lost it's fucking mind. Object.keys returns an array of strings. Non-ennumerable properties and Symbol-keyed properties aren't included

The entire industry has lost it's fucking mind. Object.keys returns an array of strings. Non-ennumerable properties and Symbol-keyed properties aren't included (on the off chance that's even relevant). That's it. It's not rocket science. This article is complete nonsense. "What if there's no e-mail validator!", then write one? Or don't try and validate an e-mail? Like ?????? How do you not know what properties the object you're validating can have? Is this seriously how these devs operate? Just write some code with no idea what data is coming into it and no desire whatsoever to iron that out before continuing? 6 months with a dynamic language, if you actually bother to learn how to code, and you'll start reading and writing code in such a way that it's blatantly obvious what every type is. I cringe when I see people say stuff like "Typescript forces you to think about types!", in practice it's the complete opposite. There's a basically perfect correlation between devs I've worked with that like TS and those that have no idea what's going on with their code and constantly need to bug the other developers for help. I was gobsmacked the first time I looked over a TS dev's shoulder and saw them trying to make changes without actually reading any of the code first. Zero idea what variable is defined where or what it holds, nah fuck that, just jump to line 148 and hover over a couple of things to try and pick up the thread from there, she'll be right.

mock-possum 3y ago
Yeah but - it’s nice to be able to do that. Like what you’re describing - > . I cringe when I see people say stuff like "Typescript forces you to think about types!", in practice it's the complete opposite … make changes without actually reading any of the code first. Zero idea what variable is defined where or what it holds, nah fuck that, just jump to line 148 and hover over a couple of things to try and pick up the thread from there, she'll be right. Why should you need to do anything else than that? If TS enables better hinting, and you can just make a change without having to sit down and digest and entire codebase first, then why not enjoy taking advantage of that? How is that not desirable? Why make things more complicated for yourself than they need to be, when you can let your tools do that work for you?
bazoom42 3y ago
If I understand you correctly, you are saying a real programmer would always know exactly what objects are passed to a function, just by reading the code. This would only be true for very simple code written in a top-down manner. For library code, you dont know how what code will call the library.

mock-possum 3y ago

Yeah but - it’s nice to be able to do that. Like what you’re describing - > . I cringe when I see people say stuff like "Typescript forces you to think about types!", in practice it's the complete opposite … make changes without actually reading any of the code first. Zero idea what variable is defined where or what it holds, nah fuck that, just jump to line 148 and hover over a couple of things to try and pick up the thread from there, she'll be right. Why should you need to do anything else than that? If TS enables better hinting, and you can just make a change without having to sit down and digest and entire codebase first, then why not enjoy taking advantage of that? How is that not desirable? Why make things more complicated for yourself than they need to be, when you can let your tools do that work for you?

bazoom42 3y ago

If I understand you correctly, you are saying a real programmer would always know exactly what objects are passed to a function, just by reading the code. This would only be true for very simple code written in a top-down manner. For library code, you dont know how what code will call the library.