Yup. The libraries underneath will still allow nonsense at runtime, though, and it will now be harder to see, so it's a partial solution as done in standard practice.

An all-TypeScript stack, if you could pull it off, would be the way to go.

[–] dan@upvote.au 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most libraries have TypeScript types these days, either bundled directly with the library (common with newer libraries), or as part of the DefinitelyTyped project.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

DefinitelyTyped is the exact kind of thing I'm talking about. You put TypeScript definitions over things, but under the hood it's still JavaScript and can fail in JavaScript ways.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

It can’t fail in javascript ways that require specific sequences of code to be written, if those sequences of code aren’t in the range of output of the Typescript compiler.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So a strictly typed language.. I think those already exist.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

If there was an easy way to use rust or something on webassemly and use that instead of JS. I'd be so happy, but I can't find how to do it without npm.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

We use this framework at work: https://leptos.dev

[–] ObstreperousCanadian@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's in alpha, but there is a Kotlin to wasm compiler in the works.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Does WASM do DOM manipulation nowadays?

[–] ObstreperousCanadian@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't look like it, unfortunately. But it's planned. Kotlin can also compile to JavaScript with DOM manipulation. I've not tried either scenario, myself.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can't wait for the day I can use something like Kotlin to write Frontend code. Maybe there'll be something like vue or react build on it

[–] rooroo@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You could use Java ages ago and it was, very rightly so, abandoned.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You meanbJavaFX? Yeah the web version of it never was great

[–] rooroo@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even worse, I’m old enough to have used GWT at some point.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago

shudder

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

Kotlin -> JavaScript would work. I assume there must be a Python version of that as well.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just use javascript and don’t try to add {} to [].

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

Well, you never try to.

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 4 months ago

You can use WebAssembly today, but you still need some JS interop for a bunch of browser features (like DOM manipulation). Your core logic can be in WebAssembly though. C# has Blazor, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some Rust WebAssembly projects. I seem to recall that there's a reimplementation of Flash player that's built in Rust and compiles to WebAssembly.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Rust would probably be the wrong tool here. This is scripting, so pointers like Rust is built around aren't really meaningful. Kotlin or Python or something are more on the ticket.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Websites have grown beyond mere scripting.
Rust is about more than just nicer pointers, it has a very expressive type system that enables correctness rarely seen outside FP.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

Websites have grown beyond mere scripting.

Parts of them, yeah. WASM in Rust makes total sense.

Rust is about more than just nicer pointers, it has a very expressive type system that enables correctness rarely seen outside FP.

If you say so. I'd suggest Haskell, but it doesn't work very naturally with interactivity, either user or intersystem.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, ideally TypeScript would be natively supported. Or maybe just Python, which is sort-of strictly typed, and definitely won't do "wat". Alas, it's not the world we live in, and browsers take JavaScript.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 4 months ago

Python supports type hints, but you need to use a type checker like Pyre or Pyright to actually check them. Python itself doesn't do anything with the type hints.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The libraries underneath will still allow nonsense at runtime

Only if you use a badly written library. Most libraries have types provided by DefinitelyTyped. Those who don’t are (in my experience) so tiny that you probably aren’t using them; or, if you really wanted, can check yourself.

In the end, if you encounter a bug, it’ still 99% of the time not a library’s fault, even if it’s written in plain JS.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Like I said to the other person, those are just types over top of JavaScript that can still fail if/when coercion happens under the hood.

I don't even know how to search it now, but a specific example came up on here of a time when JavaScript libraries will cause problems, and problems you can't even see very well if you're expecting it to act strictly-typed.