I’m glad it doesnt.

Was it an intended pun?

Unfortunately, no.

Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.

Yes, that’s what I’m counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.

I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.

Fair enough, you didn’t. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn’t seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.

As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

I don’t see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.

Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.

That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids.

If religious can keep to themselves

Since religions compete, that doesn’t sound feasible.

Git, probably

Please clarify, OP, did you mean

• hard to read semantically
• hard to read syntactically
• hard to relate how one could come with such a crappy idea, even considering all constraints of their time
• takes a lot brain real estate (justified or not)

?

What about square screens?

inb4 chaotic neckpain

Indeed. Makes it more work to filter the handful of good or even great articles from the 99.99% that use this platform for its apparent ease of money grubbing.

It’ll probably take Valhalla for me, personally.

Or a signal that you’d rather not support the worst way to introduce type systems to frontend dev. While I’m not sure that applies to DHH, I am sure there are other devs that understand compromising all your goals to codepend on Node or even JS itself isn’t that much of a win and rather see support for better options.

but I could see it being a good step forward for more meaningful features to be added in the future.

I think you are right. And that is unfortunate.

My bad, I’m not deep enough into our frontend stack to realize Hjeilsberg already did what he does best - ruining enums. (I guess he is not to blame for global imports in c#, so i can not add ‘questionable import module/namespace ideas’.)

And it seems like this proposal contains type declarations (in order to compensate for their enums), among other typescript specific things. So, guess it is option B, then.

That’s not a positive, though.

Depending on how it pans out, it’s either not useful enough. Who the hell doesn’t use namespaces or enums. Or - as

These constructs are not in the scope of this proposal, but could be added by separate TC39 proposals.

implies - a door opener to outsource TypeScripts problem unto other peoples and not to investing into improving WebAssembly. That’s just MS being lazy and making their problems other peoples problems.

I feel like this would be the ideal scenario: things working right out of the box without needing a compile step or additional tooling.

It’s just annotations. No proposed semantics of a type system which your browser could check on its own.

Thanks, might be worth a try.

Hi, I’m using the one that is built-in.

I sure hope so, but I’m not overly optimistic tbh. The market is basically considered medical, therapeutic devices. It is as you imagine, probably worse. It isn’t easy to find prices directly, but the only way this range of vendors continues to exist in this niche market is to sell devices with the complexity of a keyboard for four to five digits. There is no competition worth talking about happening.

So unless very specific regulation takes place, I don’t see standardized access to braille displays happening.

Right, that is another item I wished more editors would have picked up. Besides - say - nested language modes.