So there is apparently a problem with languages such as JavaScript and the solution is to use languages such as TypeScript.
Wut?
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
355 points (95.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
28076 readers
1255 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TypeScript and safety-critical paths should not be in one sentence.
wut ?
Why ?
Genuinely curious to learn from your arguments
It's Javascript with types. You are still using one hundred NPM packages to do the simplest thing. Any string can be JSON. And Node is single-threaded, so if you plan to create some kind of parallel computation, you'd need to run 16 Docker containers of your Node server, one per CPU core, with NGINX or some other load balancer at the business end, and hope that your database engine won't reorder transactions. And yeah, Docker is mandatory, because Node version in your latest Ubuntu release is already outdated.
don't just m-dash
chat gippity
Don't just state—regurgitate!
Maybe, but always remember LLMs are trained on real people. Some people naturally use similar styles to some LLM tica as it was stolen from them in the first place.
Just don't do bugs. How hard is that?
If I don't have documentation or defined features, then I can't do bugs!
According to all teams I've worked on.
Pretty fucking hard.
I know this is satire, But really though better languages that make various classes of defects unrepresentable reduce defects. It's wild that such a statement needs to be made, but our industry is filled with folks who don't critically think about decisions like these.
Like the age old advice for getting better at Smash Brothers - Don't get hit.
My second favorite prompt, behind "Do not hallucinate"
Go and Python and Typescript all have their own footguns.
I assume Rust is the same, but haven't used it personally to see
Rust is the foot gun, it's so perfect that you genuinely cannot just sit down and type out what you need.
Sounds like they want Ada Spark and not Rust.
i laughed pretty hard thinking isn’t that just ada
so we got rid of ada for c++ now from c++ to rust chasing ada lmao
I don't get it.
Maybe the joke is nothing complex is written in fad languages?
Maybe the joke is the discounting of peer review and testing?
Maybe the joke is the lack of devops knowledge where Python is extra steps over other scripting languages?
It seems like promotion of fad languages. When I was younger, I chased fads and lost hard. I'll stick with C and C++. Run-time failures happen to everyone including fad languages. Here's looking at you Rust CVE's. Better to have loved and lost, something, something.
Plenty of complex things have been written in fad languages. And not only complex things, COBOL was one of the biggest fad languages of all time.
I'm completely confused by why they seem to think it's impossible to have coding errors in rust. I'm also confused as to why they seem to think that errors are actually a problem. You get them you fix them. Who cares about what language you do it in.
This stinks of somebody who's been in the industry for about 2 years and now thinks they're hot shit.
I'm not even going to bother commenting on that train wreck of a post, but I just wanted to mention that I hate the writing style of programming-related LinkedIn posts. They're just chock-full of sweeping generalizations presented as absolute truth in an extremely patronizing tone.
Why can't people just say, "In my opinion, X technology is a better fit for Y situation for Z reason," instead of "Every time you encounter X, you must do Y, otherwise you're dead wrong."
It's just simultaneously so arrogant and also aggressively ignorant. If someone spoke to me like that in real life, I would never want to speak with them again. And these people are broadcasting this shit to their entire professional network.
"Blame the author, not the language"
Says the person who screams they have never worked professionally with a team before.
There is no excuse to not use statically typed, safe languages nowadays. There are languages that let you build faster like Python and Typescript, but faster does not mean safer. Even if your code is flawless it still isn't safe because all it takes is a single flawed line of code. The more bug vectors you remove the better the language is.
Even if your code is flawless it still isn’t safe because all it takes is a single flawed line of code.
If there is a single flawed line of code, the code isn't flawless.
load more comments
(2 replies)
let you build faster like Python
I have to write so much boilerplate code to make sure my objects are of the correct type and have the required attributes! Every time I write an extension for Blender that uses context access, I have to make sure that the context is correct, that the context has the proper accessor attributes (which may not be present in some contexts), that the active datablock is not None, that the active datablock's data type (with respect to Blender, not Python) is correct, that the active datablock's data is not None... either all that or let the exception fall through the stack and catch it at the last moment with a bare except and a generic error message.
I used to think that static typing was an obstacle. Now I'm burning in the isinstance/hasattr/getattr/setattr hell.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
Python isn't "untyped;" it is, in fact, strongly-typed. (And is markedly different than and superior to JavaScript on that point.)
This rant feels like it was written by an OO programmer who was never able to wrap his head around functional programming.
Why are you talking about functional programming? Python sure as hell isn't FP.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Nonsense. If your code has reached the point of unmaintainable complexity, then blame the author, not the language.
I feel like there's about one person that can cast this stone, and that's because preventing this has turns Torvalds into an abusive bridge troll sometimes, but he's actually been successful.
Well, the kernel is unmaintainably complex. Linux saves his sanity by not looking deeply into modules and only inspecting the surfaces.
I agree with the post. Setting up typescript takes an hour or two if you have no clue what you’re doing. In return you get the absence of (the equivalent of) null pointer exceptions.
I chuckle every time I find an NPE in the Java backend. Doesn’t happen to me. Can’t happen to me.
Sidenote, while I’m already gloating: Once the backend code had an error where they were comparing two different kinds of IDs (think, user ID and SSN), which gave wrong results. This error can’t happen to me either, because I type my IDs such that they are not comparable. A strong type system really is a godsend.
load more comments
(18 replies)
I half way agree. I always say form shapes function. Sure you can write good code in any language. But some encourage it more then others. Ultimately it's the programmer fault when things get over complex though
Honestly, I more than half agree because the factor most seem to conveniently ignore is that languages and environments that encourage better and safer code are aimed at the lowest common denominator.
The lowest common denominator of developers are the ones that benefit the most from a reduction in defects or unsafe code they may produce. They are the biggest pool of developers. And in my experience, the ones least likely to proactively take measures to reduce defect rates unless it's forced upon them and/or baked into their environment.
They are the ones that will slap any in typescript to resolve errors instead of actually resolving them, or the ones that will use dynamic in C# instead of actually fixing the bad design ... etc
view more: next ›