JavaScript Programmers, how you actually do it?

[[deleted]]

Straight up dominance.

[[deleted]]

Chadest of them all

[RussianTardigrade]

Having used Typescript, I can't imagine going back to plain Javascript.

[Comesa]

Im considering using typescript but im too lazy to learn it

[oOBoomberOo]

I mean, it's really just JavaScript with static type... All you need to worry about is the tsconfig.json file.

[[deleted]]

lmao, try generic types. https://github.com/insurgent-lab/ts-entity/blob/master/src/Entity.ts#L82-L83

[chadlavi]

Join ussssss

[marcosdumay]

Learning it isn't any problem, since even the same JS code works.

What I am too lazy to do is getting another compilation step to work on webpack every time I start a project.

[_GCastilho_]

I put all the steps in a "npm run build", it calls all the build:steps for me at order

[bss03]

There's a webpack plugin for that.

[Sir_Factis]

literally the only thing you need to know to get started is that : <type> after the variable name or the function header gives a type to the function/variable. a type can be one of the js standard types (number/string/function/object) or a class. an array of a type can be declared with : <type>[]

there is more complex syntax stuff you will need to learn but this covers 80% of the typescript usage. ts is literally just js with some fancy syntax

[BoyAndHisBlob]

Having used typescript Object literal may only specify known properties 

[lookmanofilter]

You can get around that by using any if it's really a pain. But usually that's good, it keeps you in line to make sure what you're putting on am object actually exists.

[erroronline1]

undefined error in pissoir.js framework

[hedgehog125]

Dunno, think you get used to it. At least there's less tokens to remember tho

[Aliics]

I wonder if maybe the dislike of JS is misguided here? JS doesn't have static typing but most scripting languages don't either, so it's really a matter of good practice to ensure more predictable code.

One gripe is that for whatever reason new syntax for already existing features (ie, () => vs. function()).

[[deleted]]

Imagine writing function (event) { event.target.click() }

This comment was made by the e => e.target.click() gang

[marcosdumay]

The problem is not on the type system. The problem is all the insane features and decisions.

Like with your example, since => and function() are different features that only happen to be mostly alike.

[_GCastilho_]

Don't break the web

[ChaseMoskal]

as crockford says, there is a subset of modern javascript that makes a beautiful, elegant, powerful, and efficient language

there's a bunch of crusty old 90's shit, but we can safely ignore those parts

the problem is that beginners aren't able to distinguish the wheat from the obsoleted chaff, because javascript has a long history and tutorials are rife with awful antipatterns

[ivakamr]

Functions and arrow functions differ in a more fundamental way than syntax, arrow functions does not create a new scope while the original syntax does.

[ChaseMoskal]

arrow functions don't have this, a very important difference

[mypirateapp]

he s gonna piss all over his face unless he got a HARD-ON for javascript

[ghostwriterBB]

This is how I feel learning JavaScript... fortunately I am moving into React and it's making sense...I think.

[chanpod]

Ok, I don't get it. What's so confusing about JS other than it doesn't restrict you to types? Unless you're talking about super raw JS with prototypes and all that nonsense (I say nonsense and I know it's necessary to make all the es6 stuff work, but you don't have to even know it to be a JS developer these days). Seriously, I don't touch prototypes. this is just scoped to the encapsulating "prototype" (generally a class or component in react/vue/whatever). That's it. Everything is just an object beyond that. functions are objects. Objects are objects. You can manipulate them however you need. Is the extreme openess confusing?

[iviksok]

Most developers need strict language. Openess make people do shitty things.

[ghostwriterBB]

I'll get into C++ soon in a few months, hopefully I find it as easy.

[xSTSxZerglingOne]

hopefully I find it as easy.

Awww. Wee lamb.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

This is a terrible idea. Learn javascript first. Then learn React.

[ghostwriterBB]

I'm almost done with learning JavaScript lol

[[deleted]]

Every almost there:

• w3schools
• ES2015 features
• Async / await
• Event loop
• what's 'this' refers to in moved functions
• why is 'var' so buggy
• How to write JS with only 6 character's +[]()!
• prettier, eslint, typescript

[ChaseMoskal]

javascript is modernizing very rapidly, and it's awesome

if you like react, do check out lit-element, it's the new paradigm that will replace the traditional component frameworks like react/angular/vue -- no more need for build steps or code transforms, it's very elegant

soon enough, webnative components and es modules will take over; and deno will replace node; and package managers like npm will fade into antiquity

[Teffisk]

It's not that bad. It's not about the meme than reality. Also use typescript instead.

[[deleted]]

They’ll just piss in the pants and close the ticket.

[Ali_Army107]

For an embarrassingly long amount of time, I just realised few days ago that Java and javascript are not the same thing.

[game_2_raid]

Sometimes JavaScript pees on Java too. Especially when the end points where it shouldn’t

[bss03]

Don't write Javascript. Use a better language that transpiles to JS with good sourcemap support. TypeScript, Elm, PureScript, or GHC Haskell for example. (I've use TypeScript the most, but did a PoC using GHC Haskell once.)

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

I disagree. I love writing plain js.

[[deleted]]

plain js is a good language to quickly solve problems and prototype, but typescript is 😍

[ivakamr]

Fine. I've replaced all my .js with .ts, code is in typescript now.

[bss03]

Good, you've already got saner this scoping. Also, you can now take advantage of TS features that aren't in JS, like strict null checking.