rockerest’s avatarrockerest’s Twitter Archive—№ 19,371

      1. …in reply to @Fenix86
        Fenix86 I agree with you in the abstract (and in the case of single letter names, almost everywhere), but I think the issue is not that sometimes TypeScript is unreadable if you're not careful, but rather that TypeScript is unnecessary complexity that adds nothing to a program.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2022 Apr 7 Mood -1 🙁
    1. …in reply to @rockerest
      Fenix86 This is a totally fine function: mobile.twitter.com/rockerest/status/1512196708192686082
      OpenGraph image for mobile.twitter.com/rockerest/status/1512196708192686082
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2022 Apr 7 Mood +2 🙂
  1. …in reply to @rockerest
    Fenix86 If the code was this, we could talk about how accepting numbers as keys is not allowed in JS, and we should simply ignore that input (which, under normal circumstances, we could do by default, since the invalid numeric keys would be coerced to strings).
    On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2022 Apr 7 Mood -2 🙁
    1. …in reply to @rockerest
      Fenix86 But instead we're talking about the structure of a type system that adds nothing to the program and just ignoring how it's papering over these kinds of invalid execution paths (that JavaScript tries to handle gracefully).
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2022 Apr 7 Mood 0