Specifically, do you worry that Microsoft is going to eventually do the Microsoft thing and horribly fuck it up for everyone? I’ve really grown to appreciate the language itself, but I’m wary of it getting too ingrained at work only to have the rug pulled out from under us when it’s become hard to back out.

Edit: not really “pulling the rug”, but, you know, doing the Microsoft classic.

  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    In TypeScript, it fails. You can’t treat an object as an arbitrary key/value pair. That’s a good thing… but still, it means TypeScript is not a superset of JavaScript.

    No, it doesn’t fail. It compiles to perfectly valid JS that runs exactly as you’d expect. The type checking itself errors, because you’ve made an error - but the compilation isn’t prevented by this error.

    So yes, Typescript is a superset of JavaScript.

    • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That is an important difference. Still lots of people, myself included, classify “compiler printing an error (not a warning)” as failure, even if bizzarly the code still runs somehow.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because you’re missing the distinction between compiler and type checker. The compiler doesn’t check types, it strips them. The type checker only checks types, it doesn’t compile. They are often used in conjunction, though increasingly the compilation is done by e.g. esbuild.

        But there is nothing “bizarre” about the code running, since literally, TS is a superset of JS.

    • lorty
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t it fail in strict mode?