Ask HN: Is TypeScript worth it?

I have been using TypeScript for a few years now, and I haven't yet been convinced that I would choose to use it if I had the choice; not just for my own personal projects but for large scale applications where the codebase is shared with many developers.

I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing and if we could bless JavaScript with a built-in and robust typing system then I don't think many people would be against that. My issue is with the amount of extra work it places on developers, much of it the "dumb" kind of work which can eat up hours and doesn't deliver all that much value.

i) Like a framework, you are at the whim of TS devs as it gets updated (edited)

For example, a new package you install can require a new TypesScript version. Once installed, you then may need to update your source code. This can place quite a high tax on the developer, where perhaps a 10 minute change becomes hours long.

ii) Libraries are badly documented

Most libraries do not document their types, or have no examples using TypeScript. Some worst offenders: Apollo, Protobufjs. The type definitions exported by these libraries can be large and complex, and the error messages emitted by TypeScript are so long and cryptic the result is often a drawn out process of trial and error along with trawling through source files.

iii) Error messages are hard to follow

Errors are long and don't provide enough detail. They will explain a type mismatch referencing many types you may not have ever seen, and are not documented anywhere. Except for simple errors, many of them are very hard to follow to a remedy.

iv) It requires yet more transpilation

Transpilation takes time, and always adds a burden to developers. I didn't mind so much with ES6 etc because eventually many functions were included in a broad set of browsers. There doesn't seem to be much progress including TypeScript in a browser, and feels like these complicated transpilation steps could be with us for a long time.

I could probably add more to this list, but my point is that I just can't see that TypeScript is worth all this time investment and making progress so slow sometimes. Are there others that come to this conclusion? I mainly see positive posts about TypeScript.

edit: I referred to TypeScript as a framework which it isn't. However it feels similar to me in that you are at the whim of TypeScript developers and how they decide to progress with the language.

> I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing and if we could bless JavaScript with a built-in and robust typing system then I don't think many people would be against that. My issue is with the amount of extra work it places on developers, much of it the "dumb" kind of work which can eat up hours and doesn't deliver all that much value.

If I take your question prima facie, then yes it's still worth it, since you seem to be dismissing the main reasons people use TypeScript, the static type benefits, and the bulk of your arguments seem to actually be about how TS can improve, not why one should throw out TS wholesale, which I personally would never do.

In other words, you're focusing on the 20% BS out of the 80% benefits. Can the 20% be improved? Of course, but I'll take 80% benefits over 0% with JS any day.

> It's a framework, with all the usual framework downsides

> For example, a new package you install can require a new TypesScript version. Once installed, you then may need to update your source code. This can place quite a high tax on the developer, where perhaps a 10 minute change becomes hours long.

No. It's a language compiler. You can upgrade it safely without changing a single line in your codebase. If there is a breaking change (sometimes, regarding the strictness) there's also a configuration option that lets you keep the previous behavior.

> ii) Libraries are badly documented

And so you're going to lose any and all typing as your solution? I don't understand. Undocumented but typed >>> undocumented and untyped.

> iii) Error messages are hard to follow

I disagree completely, TypeScript has helped me many times to understand what's happening and why - I mean errors that I wasn't aware of in my previously untyped JS codebase.

> iv) It requires yet more transpilation

> Transpilation takes time, and always adds a burden to developers.

Doesn't matter. Use SWC or esbuild for sub-100ms compilation times. Your CI is a long running job due to tests and lint anyways. Nobody is writing pure uncompiled JS these days - you can't use NPM libraries that way, so there's always some (Web)pack step. I haven't seen a single developer who liked having to care about browser versions and wants to go back to that - but if you add a compilation step you get that for free and can write the latest and greatest.

[flagged]

I don't have a lot to add except that my experience with it has been very positive; your complaints are mostly valid, but for me those pain points disappear in the shadow of all the things I no longer have to spend time stressing about or debugging