I've used `tsc --watch` as an almost-no-build-step way to write plain TypeScript with better structure (separate files, etc) for projects where dependencies aren't necessary, which works reasonably well with a few quirks, but I wish there were something more purpose-built for the task. TypeScript running natively in the browser would be amazing but I doubt that'll ever happen.
Writing JavaScript without a build system
11–20 of 187 posts
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#12All those extraneous elements to Javascript are a real turn-off. Python: batteries mostly included. Javascript: feels like you need to drag a dozen suitcases along anytime you embark on any non-trivial project.
Why is this opinion resulting in negative points? It speaks to the sentiment of the post. Happy to discuss the topic constructively.
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#13All those extraneous elements to Javascript are a real turn-off. Python: batteries mostly included. Javascript: feels like you need to drag a dozen suitcases along anytime you embark on any non-trivial project.
Huh… in Python I feel like the tooling is largely missing.
While the Python ecosystem trends towards a similar state as the JS ecosystem, at least no one yet needs to have any ideas about "tree shaking" and hype that as some kind of "new idea". When one needs to "shake out" code, because it has become too much, one should really think about not getting that code in there in the first place.
In the Python ecosystem some of the tooling does not exist, because it is not needed. Usually Python code is not shipped over network each time a website is called. Hopefully people keep dependencies of projects to a minimum, avoiding to have to fix their mistakes later by shaking out stuff. Python has an OK-ish module system, not great, but OK, compared to how JS started out. There is no need for 6-10 standards competing and requiring different "build tools" to make one huge cluster f of uglified code out of all the code of an application. Mind, it is 2023 and we still have no good way to tell the TypeScript compiler to simply spit out JavaScript code, that can immediately be served on a website, if the TS code has multiple modules. The JS ecosystem still suffers a lot from the not well thought through basis of the language and historical burden of that.
Python is far from perfect itself of course. Plenty of problems in its ecosystem as well.
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#14All those extraneous elements to Javascript are a real turn-off. Python: batteries mostly included. Javascript: feels like you need to drag a dozen suitcases along anytime you embark on any non-trivial project.
Huh… in Python I feel like the tooling is largely missing.
Precisely, because there is generally little need for it.
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#15The appeal of JavaScript when it was invented was its immediacy. No longer did you have to go through an edit-compile-debug loop, as with Java, or even an edit-upload-debug loop as with a Perl script, to see the changes you made to your web-based application. You could just mash reload on your browser and Bob's your uncle!
The JavaScript community, in all its wisdom, reinvented edit-compile-debug loops for its immediate, dynamic language and I'm still assmad about it. So assmad that I, too, forgo all that shit when working on personal projects.
(The enterprise fucking loves React and Vue. Can't avoid it at work.)
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#16I've used `tsc --watch` as an almost-no-build-step way to write plain TypeScript with better structure (separate files, etc) for projects where dependencies aren't necessary, which works reasonably well with a few quirks, but I wish there were something more purpose-built for the task. TypeScript running natively in the browser would be amazing but I doubt that'll ever happen.
I wonder how far fetched it would be to have just the syntax of Typescript on the browser without type-checking. We'd have to use tsc locally only for the typechecking, without the need of a build process, but that would be enough for me.
I know there's JSDoc but the normal syntax is so much better.
EDIT: Looks like there's a proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#17looks like HN demand might have brought the site down :P
This site can’t be reached
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh… in Python I feel like the tooling is largely missing.
While the Python ecosystem trends towards a similar state as the JS ecosystem, at least no one yet needs to have any ideas about "tree shaking" and hype that as some kind of "new idea". When one needs to "shake out" code, because it has become too much, one should really think about not getting that code in there in the first place. In the Python ecosystem some of the tooling does not exist, because it is not needed.…
python is rarely streamed across HTTP, I believe that's the reason js is treeshaked.
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#19Deno solves all of this, too bad they don't support Solid.js.
Re: Writing JavaScript without a build system
#20The appeal of JavaScript when it was invented was its immediacy. No longer did you have to go through an edit-compile-debug loop, as with Java, or even an edit-upload-debug loop as with a Perl script, to see the changes you made to your web-based application. You could just mash reload on your browser and Bob's your uncle! The JavaScript community, in all its wisdom, reinvented edit-compile-debug loops for its immedi…
A thing that I liked when I started out was the fact that you could actually read all of the JavaScript on web pages. You found something interesting? Just fetch the source or open your dev tools (firebug!) and look at the code.
There's probably merit in minification and compressing code though. But for the types of projects OP is talking about it's going to be single digit KB of JS anyways.