You Don't Have to Use JavaScript

Re:You Don't Have to Use JavaScript by MoD411 on Friday March 04, 2016 @04:03PM (#11226832)

I love how every JS rant has type safety in it. You can immediately tell that "ranter" does not use JS. Dynamic types are one of the best parts of J s

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Have to Use JavaScript by horrido on Friday March 04, 2016 @06:53PM (#11227651)

The article gives 8 examples of transpiled languages, 4 dynamically typed and 4 statically typed. There's no real preference for static typing, and in fact I'm a big fan of dynamic typing.

However, there's a difference between a strongly typed dynamic language and a weakly typed dynamic language. JavaScript is an example of the latter and it's done very badly (eg, inconsistent semantics). The lack of discipline makes it difficult to write safe, reliable software. Thus, JavaScript is ill-suited for serious software engineering.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Have to Use JavaScript by berserker-one on Friday March 04, 2016 @06:24PM (#11227535)

??? I don't see any reference to type safety. Are we reading the same article?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Have to Use JavaScript by horrido on Friday March 04, 2016 @06:58PM (#11227674)

MoD411 is referring to "loose typing and freewheeling coercions." This is not about "type safety." It's about having a predictable and reasonable binding of types. JavaScript is very sloppy in this respect, especially with regards to the underlying semantics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Have to Use JavaScript by gamechangr on Friday March 04, 2016 @04:41PM (#11227049)

Wish I could upvote twice.

Totally agree.

[ Parent | on HN ]