From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 2/6/2025 4:13 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 09:50:21 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:   
   >> Small code bases, frequent releases and high user tolerance for small   
   >> ooopses favor a language like JavaScript. Ada would not work well in   
   >> this context from a business perspective.   
   >   
   > JavaScript is also a dynamic language, unlike Ada. Maybe not as dynamic as   
   > Python, but still lets you do a lot in quite compact code.   
   >   
   > I’m not sure I agree with the “tolerance for small ooopses”. There is a   
   > thing called “use strict”, which helps catch common JavaScript errors. It   
   > is even enforced in new-style modules.   
      
   If a web page gives an error, then users try to ignore it, try   
   with another browser and worst case just try again next day - and   
   nobody is really surprised. If airplane control software has an   
   error that cause a crash and kill hundreds of people, then it   
   makes world wide headlines.   
      
   >> Code bases are not small anymore though. And TypeScript has taken huge   
   >> chunks of market share from JavaScript in recent years.   
   >   
   > TypeScript is just an attempt to add static typing to JavaScript. Maybe it   
   > works for native-side code bases (i.e. not in a browser sandbox).   
      
   I don't think the word *just* in "just an attempt to add static   
   typing" is a fair description.   
      
   It does add optional static typing, but that enables a lot   
   of things that impact how code is written: different way   
   to do OO, generics, enum etc.. It is a significant change.   
      
   Arne   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)