You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
57 points
*

Yup. The libraries underneath will still allow nonsense at runtime, though, and it will now be harder to see, so it’s a partial solution as done in standard practice.

An all-TypeScript stack, if you could pull it off, would be the way to go.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Most libraries have TypeScript types these days, either bundled directly with the library (common with newer libraries), or as part of the DefinitelyTyped project.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

DefinitelyTyped is the exact kind of thing I’m talking about. You put TypeScript definitions over things, but under the hood it’s still JavaScript and can fail in JavaScript ways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It can’t fail in javascript ways that require specific sequences of code to be written, if those sequences of code aren’t in the range of output of the Typescript compiler.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

So a strictly typed language… I think those already exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

If there was an easy way to use rust or something on webassemly and use that instead of JS. I’d be so happy, but I can’t find how to do it without npm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

We use this framework at work: https://leptos.dev

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s in alpha, but there is a Kotlin to wasm compiler in the works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You can use WebAssembly today, but you still need some JS interop for a bunch of browser features (like DOM manipulation). Your core logic can be in WebAssembly though. C# has Blazor, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some Rust WebAssembly projects. I seem to recall that there’s a reimplementation of Flash player that’s built in Rust and compiles to WebAssembly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Rust would probably be the wrong tool here. This is scripting, so pointers like Rust is built around aren’t really meaningful. Kotlin or Python or something are more on the ticket.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, ideally TypeScript would be natively supported. Or maybe just Python, which is sort-of strictly typed, and definitely won’t do “wat”. Alas, it’s not the world we live in, and browsers take JavaScript.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Python supports type hints, but you need to use a type checker like Pyre or Pyright to actually check them. Python itself doesn’t do anything with the type hints.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The libraries underneath will still allow nonsense at runtime

Only if you use a badly written library. Most libraries have types provided by DefinitelyTyped. Those who don’t are (in my experience) so tiny that you probably aren’t using them; or, if you really wanted, can check yourself.

In the end, if you encounter a bug, it’ still 99% of the time not a library’s fault, even if it’s written in plain JS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Like I said to the other person, those are just types over top of JavaScript that can still fail if/when coercion happens under the hood.

I don’t even know how to search it now, but a specific example came up on here of a time when JavaScript libraries will cause problems, and problems you can’t even see very well if you’re expecting it to act strictly-typed.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmer_humor@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

  • Keep content in english
  • No advertisements
  • Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

Community stats

  • 2.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 861

    Posts

  • 14K

    Comments