Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It is especially weird because JavaScript was not supposed to be processed at all! This is all wrong if you ask me. Web development should strive to launch unchanged sources in the browser. TypeScript also was specifically designed so engine could strip types and execute result code. These build tools should not exist in the first place.
JavaScript was not supposed to a lot of things.
loading story #47362961
loading story #47367257
loading story #47362184
> TypeScript also was specifically designed so engine could strip types and execute result code. These build tools should not exist in the first place.

Was it? Have you forgotten namespaces and enums?

loading story #47364077
If you're already passing over the sources to strip the types, why would you also not do tree-shaking and minifications?
loading story #47362392
> TypeScript also was specifically designed so engine could strip types and execute result code.

That's no less a build step than concating, bundling, minifying, etc. When people say "I'm against processing code before deploying it to a web site" but then also say "TypeScript is okay though" or "JSX is okay though," all they're really saying is "I like some build steps but not others." Which is fine! Just say that!

> It is especially weird because JavaScript was not supposed to be processed at all! This is all wrong if you ask me.

You're not actually suggesting that technology can't evolve are you? Especially one whose original design goals were to process basic forms and are now being used to build full-blown apps?

It's absolutely wild to me that with everything that has happened in the last 2 decades with regard to the web there are still people who refuse to accept that it's changed. We are building far bigger and more complex applications with JavaScript. What would you propose instead?

loading story #47366719