HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-21 day agoWhy make it complicated?imagemessage-square103linkfedilinkarrow-up1326arrow-down131file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1295arrow-down1imageWhy make it complicated?HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-21 day agomessage-square103linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarecalcopiritus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·1 day agoIt’s also valid rust syntax. But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type let a and type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·1 day agolet a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into() I’ll see myself out.
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·9 hours agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 hours agoAnd bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not! This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
minus-squareVictor@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·21 hours agoType inference is a pretty big thing in TypeScript as well though. In fact it’s probably the biggest thing about it, IMO.
minus-squarecalcopiritus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·17 hours agoI don’t know typescript. But if that’s the case, this meme doesn’t make much sense. Who writes the types of variables in a language with type inference unless forced by the compiler?
minus-squareVictor@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·14 hours agoMaybe it’s a language without type interference? Either way, it sometimes makes sense in TypeScript to help the type system out a little bit. let array: string[] = []; In this situation, the type system can’t infer that the empty array should be a string array, because there are no items to go by.
It’s also valid rust syntax.
But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type
let aand type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.let a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into()I’ll see myself out.
At least be fair and cut out the
.into()And bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not!
This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
Type inference is a pretty big thing in TypeScript as well though. In fact it’s probably the biggest thing about it, IMO.
I don’t know typescript. But if that’s the case, this meme doesn’t make much sense.
Who writes the types of variables in a language with type inference unless forced by the compiler?
Maybe it’s a language without type interference?
Either way, it sometimes makes sense in TypeScript to help the type system out a little bit.
let array: string[] = [];In this situation, the type system can’t infer that the empty array should be a
stringarray, because there are no items to go by.