I’m sure that’s the case, but the meme is not making fun of typescript, its making fun of his dad: JavaScript, maybe for not comparing to his son: typescript
You’re right about python being the same. Python doesn’t have a mature alternative to Typescript that launches it into having best-in-class type handling.
There’s so much that my C# devs can’t do with its horrible type system that Typescript “just does better”. At compile-time at least.
I used to work on a hybrid typescript/python product (some services js, some TS, some python), and the TS stuff was just faster-running, easier to iterate, and better. And story-point allocations consistently showed that for an excess of 20 devs working on those codebases.
As for pip/easy_install vs npm/yarn/pnpm… I’m curious what you think pip does well that yarn/npm doesn’t? I’ll say in my work experience there’s more/better enterprise private repository/cache support for node modules than for python modules. Using npm security databases alongside “known good versioning” allows a team of even 100 developers to safely add libraries to projects with no fear of falling out of corporate compliance regulations. I’ve never seen that implemented with pip
Afaik JavaScript only runs in a browser. If you want to make a desktop app your only option is something like electron.
For example, you can’t make the equivalent of a bash script with JS, but it’s trivial with python. I don’t think you can do system calls at all with JS.
Is python really any better?
yes
loosely typed: python is the same
bad package manager: python is infinitely worse
false
don’t think so but ehy…
pip is the bane of my existence
Also python IS loosely typed. take a str and you can reassign it to an int or whatever
Yep last time I tried python, it’s type checker was so, so much worse than typescript.
Everyone I’ve met saying python is better turned out not have used modern JavaScript/typescript.
I’m sure that’s the case, but the meme is not making fun of typescript, its making fun of his dad: JavaScript, maybe for not comparing to his son: typescript
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Python is strongly typed. What is is is dynamically typed, also known as “duck typing”.
Strong typing doesn’t have a widely agreed upon definition. Duck typing is not equivalent to dynamic typing.
You’re right about python being the same. Python doesn’t have a mature alternative to Typescript that launches it into having best-in-class type handling.
There’s so much that my C# devs can’t do with its horrible type system that Typescript “just does better”. At compile-time at least.
I used to work on a hybrid typescript/python product (some services js, some TS, some python), and the TS stuff was just faster-running, easier to iterate, and better. And story-point allocations consistently showed that for an excess of 20 devs working on those codebases.
As for pip/easy_install vs npm/yarn/pnpm… I’m curious what you think pip does well that yarn/npm doesn’t? I’ll say in my work experience there’s more/better enterprise private repository/cache support for node modules than for python modules. Using npm security databases alongside “known good versioning” allows a team of even 100 developers to safely add libraries to projects with no fear of falling out of corporate compliance regulations. I’ve never seen that implemented with pip
Python is as inefficient as js is ugly
Well done.
That is like a colleague farewell card that says, “Four years already? It seems like only six months with all that we have accomplished.”
Afaik JavaScript only runs in a browser. If you want to make a desktop app your only option is something like electron.
For example, you can’t make the equivalent of a bash script with JS, but it’s trivial with python. I don’t think you can do system calls at all with JS.
There are non-browser JavaScript implementations, the most well-known of which is node.js