@HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-214 hours agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square74fedilinkarrow-up1256arrow-down10file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1256arrow-down1imageWhy make it complicated?lemmy.ml@HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-214 hours agomessage-square74fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-square@JakenVeina@midwest.sociallinkfedilink9•edit-212 hours agoNot to short-circuit the joke, but in this case, it’s because the valid JavaScript version is… let a …and one of TypeScript’s main design goals is to be a superset of JavaScript, that only adds syntax, and doesn’t re-write it. Beyond that, it’s probably a case of some new language just using what the designer is familiar with.
minus-square@pivot_root@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink2•7 hours ago TypeScript […] only adds syntax, and doesn’t re-write it. I believe enum, const enum, and decorators would like to have a word with you.
minus-square@JakenVeina@midwest.sociallinkfedilink3•9 hours agoThen the second part of my statement applies.
minus-squareEpheralinkfedilinkEnglish2•3 hours agoIn the case of Rust, you can also omit the type annotation in the vast majority of cases and the compiler will infer it.
Not to short-circuit the joke, but in this case, it’s because the valid JavaScript version is…
let a…and one of TypeScript’s main design goals is to be a superset of JavaScript, that only adds syntax, and doesn’t re-write it.
Beyond that, it’s probably a case of some new language just using what the designer is familiar with.
I believe
enum,const enum, and decorators would like to have a word with you.Who says this is JS? Might be Rust.
Then the second part of my statement applies.
In the case of Rust, you can also omit the type annotation in the vast majority of cases and the compiler will infer it.