this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
931 points (97.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

32716 readers
547 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (7 children)

K, well configure your linter the way a professional Typescript environment should have it configured, and it will be there too. Not to be rude but not having a linter configured and running is a pretty basic issue. If you configured your project with Vite or any other framework it would have this configured OOTB.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (6 children)

@masterspace

Not to be rude but not having a linter configured and running is a pretty basic issue.

Yeah, if you're a C programmer in the 1980s, maybe. But it's 2006 now and compilers are able to do basic sanity checks all on their own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Interpreted languages don't have compilers, and one of the steps that compilers do is LINTING. You're literally complaining about not configuring your compiler properly and blaming it on the language.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not to play the devil's advocate, but with compiled languages you can just install the language, “run” your script and it'll work, if not the language will catch undeclared variables for you, and more. With interpreted languages you need to not only install the language but also third party tools for these fairly Barovia things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To play devil's advocate to that, why is it better that a language is monolithic vs having its various components be independent let different frameworks mix and match different parts?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I mean, it could just do very basic checking...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)