- cross-posted to:
- programming
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- programming
- hackernews
You must log in or register to comment.
Please please please can we just use type safe languages.
Agreed. Just the idea of finally replacing JS with something only to be another of those “dynamic” languages makes me want to puke.
Asking genuinely as someone who knows not much about this subject, is typescript not already an option? Isn’t it just type safe js that gets interpreted as js?
Typescript doesn’t run in browser. It gets translated to js by some build steps. I would also say it’s only mostly type safe. You can kind of trick the system if you don’t know what you’re doing or don’t like your coworkers.
No, you can’t if there’s any semblance of a PR review process. Reject until it’s type safe.
Yes, it is and it’s great. 😎
It’s alright. I work with it every day and constantly wish it had RTTI
This isn’t about replacing javascript, this compiles something that looks a bit like Python to C and then to WASM. Which browsers can run natively these days. But you can do that with any source language if there’s a compiler for it, type safe or not. You can compile Rust to WASM too for example. So nothing’s getting replaced, these are just additional tools for Web developers.
I think if the idea is to replace js, it should be a superset language at the interpreter level. I.e. the interpreter can run js, but valid js wouldn’t work with the compiler. It makes it a drop-in replacement without harming legacy
WebAssembly is the target, not js, I believe.
Very interesting.
