31–40 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess static first is a chore because at that point you have no idea what invariant or structure is required for the task. After prototyping you know where to tighten the bolts.
There are some languages that give you a bit of both worlds, like F#.
For me, I can handle the lack of static typing when I'm doing small scripts, like if it's going to be 100 lines or so of Python (my go-to language if I need to test some math out in a sandbox or do some file manipulation on my system). I might actually be a little faster in writing those scripts because of the lack of typing. Once it starts getting any bigger than that, though, static typing really catches and points…
I guess static first is a chore because at that point you have no idea what invariant or structure is required for the task. After prototyping you know where to tighten the bolts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The heuristic of "new JS tech is just needless complexity/over-engineering" is not a bad one to have in the JS ecosystem imo :)
Typescript is hardly "new", it's fairly widely accepted now. It might be worth thinking "why do all these people enjoy using Typescript?". or idk just say that no, its the kids that are wrong.
It adds to countless attempts of other transpiled *scripts to extend Javascript.
They, and Coffeescript in particular, are good historical references to what will happen to TS in a few years.
But with Typescript it is as if I'm always fighting the compilator, trying to make it happy with whatever code I wrote. Maybe it's just the JS ecosystem being too lax that makes having types for everything difficult? Like you have a react hook and some components that you can compose, and the typedefs just become unwieldy and impossible to get right. Often they end up not even catching what should be compilation errors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, though at least there's one less developer writing about the "TypeScript Tax".
I am a TypeScript fan but I do acknowledge the existence of the tax. TS is another cog in the machine that does useful work but can sometimes confusingly interact with other cogs (e.g. miles long unreadable TS errors coming out of React). Using or not using TS is not a trivial decision to me and should be made with consideration to the complexity of your stack.
I for one am building a large CRUD application with dozens of models spanning hundreds of fields, and Typescript is helping me (though not a panacea) keeping things correct.
I'm comparing it to a project I did years ago, first Backbone, then Angular, but both before 'typesave JS' was a thing, and that one relied heavily on reading and comparing keys and a deep knowledge of the domain.
But nearly ten years later, I don't have the mental capacity for that anymore and I need the crutches that typed languages offer me. By crutches I mean securities, safeguards and IDE assistance.
It makes sense for anything nontrivial IMO. Types allow you to be able to free up mental space. You can trust the type checker instead of having to rely on your own abilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, Coffeescript was fairly widely used at its peak, and now it's all but dead. Front-end fads are fickle. At least TypeScript has Microsoft backing it so they'll likely continue to support even if the rest of the webdev world moves on to the next shiny object.
I don't think I've ever heard of any in-production, large apps in Coffeescript, even from when it was at its peak. I know of a handful of companies that tried it and even enjoyed it quite a bit but none of it was for mass consumption. Typescript, meanwhile, is used for hugely popular apps, is used by very large companies, has Microsoft's full backing, etc. The two are not comparable. Edit: Clearly I'm misremembering…
I just can't bring myself to use curly bracket languages. I can't make a good enough case for any of them. I read way too much code to make myself read code that's not beautiful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typescript is hardly "new", it's fairly widely accepted now. It might be worth thinking "why do all these people enjoy using Typescript?". or idk just say that no, its the kids that are wrong.
I mean, Coffeescript was fairly widely used at its peak, and now it's all but dead. Front-end fads are fickle. At least TypeScript has Microsoft backing it so they'll likely continue to support even if the rest of the webdev world moves on to the next shiny object.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, Coffeescript was fairly widely used at its peak, and now it's all but dead. Front-end fads are fickle. At least TypeScript has Microsoft backing it so they'll likely continue to support even if the rest of the webdev world moves on to the next shiny object.
I don't think I've ever heard of any in-production, large apps in Coffeescript, even from when it was at its peak. I know of a handful of companies that tried it and even enjoyed it quite a bit but none of it was for mass consumption. Typescript, meanwhile, is used for hugely popular apps, is used by very large companies, has Microsoft's full backing, etc. The two are not comparable. Edit: Clearly I'm misremembering…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typescript is hardly "new", it's fairly widely accepted now. It might be worth thinking "why do all these people enjoy using Typescript?". or idk just say that no, its the kids that are wrong.
Typescript is not accepted. How AngularJS stuck on 1.* is the best proof, and an illustration for the problem. Pretty serious people are working in Angular community, it's immensely popular in the enterprise webapp space, so I will not take the "Ah, it's just amateurs who are stuck there." It adds to countless attempts of other transpiled *scripts to extend Javascript. They, and Coffeescript in particular, are good h…