2 ms·
No, its plain old lazyness. All these "compiled to JS" language makers would rather add more fancy syntactic sugar or extend the standard library than getting t
by revelation 13y ago
No, its plain old lazyness. All these "compiled to JS" language makers would rather add more fancy syntactic sugar or extend the standard library than getting their goddamn bases covered.
I have no problem with that, but please don't go on about how you are much more productive in this language than in JS, and how much cheaper the code will be to maintain.
- jerf 13y agoPer my sibling post, I do not believe you are technically correct. Debuggers must support the ability to debug compiled languages before anyone can usefully implement support for debugging. I'm curious what exactly you think the developers of languages that compile to JS are not doing out of "lazyness"?
- calpaterson 13y agoA counterexample is coffeescript, which I think does have a plugin for Chrome to allow a source-level debugger.
- cia_plant 13y agoI think it's ridiculous to call people "lazy" who wrote an entirely new language from scratch and released it for free, because it's lacking one feature.
- deno 13y agoYou can run (and debug) Dart natively in Dartium.