4 ms·
Certainly so! The first example is needlessly contrived. But instead of for (const i=0; i < data.length; i++) { new_data[i] = old_data[i].toUpperCase();
by nine_k 2y ago
Certainly so! The first example is needlessly contrived.
But instead of
for (const i=0; i < data.length; i++) {
new_data[i] = old_data[i].toUpperCase();
}
you can write
const new_data = old_data.map((x) => x.toUpperCase());
I think it's both more clear and less error-prone.
- nuancebydefault 2y agoThe second code does not compile and introduces a new dependency.
- nine_k 2y agoSorry, are we speaking about the same language? https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/MYewdgzgLgBCA2ATA+oghlNMC8MDaARCAQDQwEBO8AngQLoDcAUKJLGAKYDuqGWuCFOkwA6ALZoADgAppADwCUOAHww5IqCACqkyRwoBhNBA7SFC5i3AQEHEfBABzaZx7C0IgFYgAlmGkE5OYMQA https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/MYewdgzgLgBCA2ATA...
- nuancebydefault 2y agoMy apologies, I thought it was C++. I should learn typescript, it is one of those I'm postponing.
- Izkata 2y agoNothing in that snippet is Typescript-specific, it's just plain Javascript. All syntactically valid Javascript is also syntactically valid Typescript, it just adds stuff, though you can get runtime errors for things like reassigning variables in a way Javascript is fine with that Typescript disallows.