4 ms·
You know that’s just some syntactic sugar for Typescript right? You can just use JavaScript without any of that but it’s certainly not something I would say is
by mdhb 2y ago
You know that’s just some syntactic sugar for Typescript right? You can just use JavaScript without any of that but it’s certainly not something I would say is “non-standard”. I can’t actually think of a more standards aligned front end library than Lit.
Also I have to say none of what you mentioned about JS template literals even remotely matches my experience nor have I ever heard of anyone mention this before I’d love to know more of what you’re referring to here though.
How a feature that’s literally built into the JavaScript spec is somehow buggier than JSX is actually kind of confusing to me to be totally honest with you.
- jeswin 2y ago> You know that’s just some syntactic sugar for Typescript right But it's also something JS is standardizing. Previously TypeScript had stuff that broke when JS decided to standardize differently. In fact, it's happened in decorators as well when the spec changed - old TypeScript code which used this syntax will stop working at some point if it hasn't already. > How a feature that’s literally built into the JavaScript spec is somehow buggier than JSX is actually kind of confusing to me The problem is that strings have no type information, unless we parse it into some AST and connect it with the rest of the program. You could do that during dev with extra tooling, but because JSX parsing is built into TypeScript (and hence VSCode) it just works out of the box.