• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you’re provided a tool that solves a problem, I don’t really get ignoring that and continuing to focus on that solved problem as if it weren’t solved because you think all the tools should solve it on principle

    • bitcrafter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s a little bit like saying, “I don’t understand why people continue to complain about the landmine sitting right there on the ground. We’ve painted it red so you can easily walk around it, so how has the problem not been solved?”

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Linters are standard practice in any decent shop. You want to change the language to destroy backward compatibility for one already-solved issue

        • riodoro1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think nobody said anything about wanting to fix this. We’re just making fun of how absolutely dumb this is.

        • bitcrafter@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Land mines are painted red in my shop. You want to change the language to remove a land mine that everyone competent already knows enough to step around. The problem has already been solved, so why are you continuing to complain about it?

          Just to be clear, I’m not actually calling for JavaScript to change, I’m just pointing out that people are right to point out this as being a problem. Having said that, if everyone competent uses linters now so that this feature isn’t used in practice anymore, then getting rid of it shouldn’t even break anything, and arguably code which would break is already broken because it uses an operator that no one should be using, so you shouldn’t be using this code anyway.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I can sort of get down with what you’re saying, but on the other hand, we all have design constraints, inside and outside of programming, I think this is a very minor one