11 replies

1. Stuart Langridge 8 min later

   @zachleat "It would be a showstopper for us. In fact, if you have a moment, it would stop this show and twenty-three other unrelated shows. Throwing away a working codebase and all the knowledge it embodies in order to completely reimplement it in some other language for no benefit other than fashion is an idea so stupid that other ideas use it as a warning to their children. (If you're about to say "types", have a word with yourself, would you?) So, no. We have not."
   I can dream :)

2. Dimitris Grammatikogiannis 20 min later

   @zachleat quote.replace(“typescript”, “esm”) === true

   1. Zach Leatherman 21 min later

      @dgrammatiko can’t avoid those, they’re inevitable

3. Private reply 1 hr later
   1. Private reply 1 hr later
4. mortendk 🤘 1 hr later

   @zachleat do it ;)

5. Andy Bell 2 hr later

   @zachleat I would appreciate it if you didn’t publish my PR feedback

   1. Zach Leatherman 2 hr later

      @andy RT @tailwindcss@twitter.com HTML is better than JavaScript

6. westbrook 2 hr later

   @zachleat or at least write it in es modules…cough cough. 😉

   1. Zach Leatherman 3 hr later

      @westbrook I’m working on it 😅😅😅

7. lilo 12 hr later

   @zachleat That's a question worth considering (if we talk about a code base in javascript).

   @andy