Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 469 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#331

Post by Dylan16807 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #170
_gabe_ wrote: post #148

For ii.) Typescript is a superset of javascript. If it annoys you to try to translate JS documentation into TS, then don't. Just use the JS example and use ts-ignore or something similar. Why throw out TS when you can literally suppress those one-off instances? iii) You should see C++ template errors if you think the TS errors are bad. The TS errors do suck sometimes, but when I see which line of code it's complainin…

There is a big issue with “suppressing one off instances”: the truth is you’re either fully bought in or you’re not. If you have “any” types or ignores littering your code base, you don’t have type safety, and at that point, why even have typescript? There’s not _really_ any such thing as being “mostly” type safe. You could argue that “this part of my code is type safe” but if it interacts with any other part of your…

Your code is going to run on a computer somewhere. It will never be completely safe. And many kinds of error will escape even full detailed types.

Mostly safe is useful. The more you tighten types, the fewer errors can occur.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#332

Post by [deleted] »

nack_jickolson wrote: post #324

Ok so I finally created an account just to respond to this post because I wanted to share my experience with typescript. I really don't get the confusion and doubts about the usefulness of typescript. It's my favorite language to use because of it's expressiveness. In my company we built a lot of web apps in very small teams (mostly just 2 people). We use mostly c# as a backend and typescript + mostly angular, someti…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#333

Post by nc »

One pitfall i've found with TypeScript is getting too clever with type definitions. Too much abstraction can end up eating up a lot of time (especially with a large team). This happens because as you say, the error messages are verbose and hard to follow.

Once we started keeping our type definitions small and simple we've found it's hugely beneficial.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#334

Post by once_inc »

zabzonk wrote: post #316
eitland wrote: post #305

Short answer: It is worth it if you want me on the team. I refuse to work with anyone who throws out TS for JS in 2023. Slightly longer answer: I have said a number of times "Javascript is a simple version of Java in the same way as a bike with one wheel is a simpler version of an ordinary bike." The same can be said about JS and TS. If you want to do any serious work you go for the serious thing even if it means occ…

whoever said that javascript was a simple version of java? the two languages have almost nothing in common - at least a unicycle and a bicycle share the concepts of "wheel" and "pedals".

Java has wheels and pedals. Javascript only has objects that say they are wheels, and objects that say they are pedals, but which are really both and neither at the same time.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#335

Post by domk »

tomxor wrote: post #295
CSMastermind wrote: post #116

I'm old enough to have worked on two different large enterprise applications which predated TypeScript and it was a nightmare. Personally I've found that JavaScript lends better to a functional style of coding but there are no protections in the language to enforce this and both codebases I saw had a weird mismatched set of object oriented and functional style principals. Defined classes, prototypical inheritance, mo…

> especially when you're 20 function calls down a stack trying to understand what's happening. Yeah I hate code like that too, but it's not clear to me how type checking would help.

I think type checking helps with that both directly and indirectly.

It helps directly by making it much easier to know what type or shape everything is. Without types, all you have are variable names and tracing the code back up the stack yourself. Sometimes good naming conventions are enough. More often than not, a variable called `product` can be one of 3 different types and you have no idea why unless you go up the call stack to figure it out.

I find it also helps indirectly by making clever code harder to write. The dynamic nature of JavaScript encourages a degree of cleverness and meta-programming that makes things harder to understand. While you can do the same in TypeScript, making the complier happy makes it much harder to do so, which encourages more straightforward code.

Of course, you can write clever type definitions that are impossible to follow. Sometimes you do want to do some meta-programming without fighting the compiler. But in my experience, the path of least resistance when writing TypeScript is fairly straightforward OOP that tends to lead to clearer code.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#336

Post by bestest »

schwartzworld wrote: post #319
bestest wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure! I want prettier for types. So I don't have to manually type the obvious things. The IDEs are smart, but I haven't found one that would be that smart.

IntelliJ / WebStorm has this exact feature. You can also generate API types based on your backend.

That is cool. Will try that. But the type information the IDE provides to me is sufficient even without TypeScript. So, back again to the question — is TypeScript worth it?

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#337

Post by dfreire »

eitland wrote: post #305

Short answer: It is worth it if you want me on the team. I refuse to work with anyone who throws out TS for JS in 2023. Slightly longer answer: I have said a number of times "Javascript is a simple version of Java in the same way as a bike with one wheel is a simpler version of an ordinary bike." The same can be said about JS and TS. If you want to do any serious work you go for the serious thing even if it means occ…

I don’t want to sound harsh, but saying Javascript is a simpler version of Java just tells me you have never used Java seriously.

It’s like saying Korean is a simpler version of Spanish.

Yes, Java and Javascript are both programming languages, but they don’t even share the same paradigm.

You might be confusing the motivation that led to the creation of Javascript with the actual implementation.

Having said that, I have used Java professionally for more than 7 years, then I switched to mainly Javascript, and later to Typescript, and I’m never going back. I agree with your overall point.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#338

Post by franky47 »

i) You could say the same thing for the underlying language: EcmaScript has evolved so much in recent years that new packages may use runtime language features that are not supported by an older interpreter runtime.

ii) You could argue that types themselves can be documentation, if named correctly. A JS library without types but great documentation is vulnerable to implementation changes that are not reflected in the documentation. TypeScript at least binds the internal assumptions on function arguments and object types to how they should be used, with a tool to check that there is a match at the call site. Throw in some runtime parsers (eg: Zod) to enforce correct input data at runtime, and from which types are inferred, and you are golden.

iii) Agreed, 100%. Some people are making tools around that, see Matt Pocock's Total Typescript error explainer extension in VSCode: mattpocock.ts-error-translator

iv) Agreed again. Transpilation itself can be fast with modern tooling such as SWC or esbuild (or derivatives). Type checking is still the main bottleneck, though people like Donny (@kdy1dev) are working on a Rust-based alternative.

https://www.totaltypescript.com/rewriting-typescript-in-rust

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#339

Post by jamil7 »

mchaver wrote: post #315
jamil7 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anecdotal evidence from my Haskell experience: If my Haskell programs compiled, they usually worked. Which is amazing. Powerful types for the win. I have the same feeling regarding Haskell, Elm and Swift, the latter I program in 99% of the time. I really don't feel like I get the same sense of security from Typescript, to be honest. Maybe I'm not using it correctly? I tend to lean more towards OP's opinion. I would…

Rescript and its standard library Belt are great. I have been using BuckleScript/ReasonML/Rescript since 2018. It gives better guarantees than TypeScript and has a stronger focus on the functional approach to problems. The only drawback is it has less documentation than TypeScript, and you will likely have to write bindings for JS libraries you want to use.

Thanks for sharing, I'm definitely going to dig into it more.

Re: Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

#340

Post by majestic5762 »

I write types everywhere. Without types, I'm in the blind. So yeah, don't look at motifs why some library maintainer has TS errors in their declaration files. I'm a full-stack TS developer, and I can count on my one hand fingers the times when some library had type problems. And if they had, I would fix them with my own declarations. But how do you code without types? It brings so much clarity to everything. Judging by your questions, you haven't worked with TS a bit. Or you like sensational HN titles, drawing in all the kids lol
Post reply on HN