3 ms·
Isn't alienation exactly what you are doing here? 9 out of 10 JS posts here are talk positively about typescript. Let the 1 of 10 talk freely, could you?
by meiraleal 2y ago
Isn't alienation exactly what you are doing here?
9 out of 10 JS posts here are talk positively about typescript.
Let the 1 of 10 talk freely, could you?
- handfuloflight 2y agoOdd way to respond to my question. No where was I espousing censorship.
- meiraleal 2y agoIt is not censorship for those who like JS-looking languages like TypeScript. The idea that focusing on JS is alienation is at least hilarious for someone that doesn't follow the typescript religion.
- handfuloflight 2y agoSo it's not alienation? What exactly are you arguing? Why are you arguing? How has TypeScript hurt you to this extent?
- meiraleal 2y agoalienation is to want that people should always choose TypeScript, which is what you were initially complaining in favor of, just because this specific post mention not using Typescript.
- handfuloflight 2y agoNo. That's your interpretation of what my post meant. I was not complaining about anything. Neither did I indicate anywhere that everyone should always choose Typescript. Typescript is obviously so related to Javascript that I wanted to understand more—technical reasons—why the author was excluding Typescript in such a way from any sort of treatment, even passing remarks that explains his stance. I may not have explicitly asked for a technical discussion, but this is Hacker News and I know better what my intentions and meanings are than you do. You're the one who brought the complaints, and made it into a religious dispute. Go into my comment history and find any discussions from me about Typescript or Javascript. You're superimposing a debate on me that I'm not part of. I did not know that debate was so omnipresent in the community that you deem it rational to extract such intent from my question, but I see that now. Perhaps I was not privy to such a debate because Typescript has so obviously won.
- meiraleal 2y ago> No. That's your interpretation of what my post meant. Ok, that's what I understood from your post. Sorry if I got you wrong. But the reason to exist of this thread is to talk about JavaScript, pure old JS. Unfortunately, the mention of TypeScript got more attention than anything else.