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

TypeScript 7

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: TypeScript 7

#41

Post by MBCook »

stymaar wrote: post #28

Performance improvements, yay ! It always surprises me how little complaints there have been on HN about tsc's performance. I do both TypeScript and Rust at work, and I've seen orders of magnitude more comments on the web about how “rustc is slow” than complaints about tsc's performance and it never stops to surprise me given than in practice the later have annoyed me consistently more than the former.

I didn’t care. Because to me the performance was a cost I was more than willing to pay for giving me sanity in JS land. Knowing you were passing the right types, right number of arguments, etc. Just the quality of documentation you got from having types at all above the nothing we had before was huge.

I love they’ve made it a ton faster. But I never thought about giving it up due to compiler performance.

Re: TypeScript 7

#42

Post by kstrauser »

adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't recall anyone disliking types. Lots of people disliked static typing, or more directly static, explicit typing. For instance, I've been around many conversations over the years where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension.

There are some genuinely untyped languages, or more typically "stringly typed" ones. I hacked around on AREXX as a youth, where all values are strings, even when they look like numbers. Most of the Unix CLI tools like sed could be, uh, said, to be stringly typed. Most of the "discussions" about typing, though, involved Python and similar dynamically typed languages. I don't think I've ever heard someone claim that weakly typed or untyped languages were great for building large project. I've heard plenty of people claiming that Python couldn't be used to build large projects because it was dynamically typed, or "untyped" as they wrongly described it, which was confusing to those of us using it to build large projects.

Re: TypeScript 7

#43

Post by tiffanyh »

chem83 wrote: post #23
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

dhh is still not very fond of it. To each their own. https://world.hey.com/dhh/turbo-8-is-dropping-typescript-701...

> TypeScript just gets in the way of that for me. Not just because it requires an explicit compile step, but because it pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard, and things that are hard become `any`. No thanks!

That comment is expected by a Ruby enthusiast, which is arguably one of the most dynamic languages in existence.

Re: TypeScript 7

#44

Post by sysguest »

kstrauser wrote: post #42
adamddev1 wrote: post #14

Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? I love TypeScript, if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

I don't recall anyone disliking types . Lots of people disliked static typing , or more directly static, explicit typing . For instance, I've been around many conversations over the years where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension. There are some genuinely untyped languages…

> I don't recall anyone disliking types

> where people would say goofy things like they couldn't use Python because it's untyped. That's insane: Python is strongly typed. It's also dynamically typed, which is a different dimension.

hmm maybe you don't understand type-checking INSIDE IDE, NOT during runtime?

Re: TypeScript 7

#47

Post by [deleted] »

tiffanyh wrote: post #43
chem83 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dhh is still not very fond of it. To each their own. https://world.hey.com/dhh/turbo-8-is-dropping-typescript-701...

> TypeScript just gets in the way of that for me. Not just because it requires an explicit compile step, but because it pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard, and things that are hard become `any`. No thanks! That comment is expected by a Ruby enthusiast, which is arguably one of…

[deleted]

Re: TypeScript 7

#49

Post by miiiiiike »

After a few years of using Typescript, having to use type annotations and import basic language features like `abc` in Python feels like an absolute slog.

Re: TypeScript 7

#50

Post by horsawlarway »

ajkjk wrote: post #39
horsawlarway wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at some of the typing present in MS COM back in the IE5/6 days and we can discuss more. I can honestly tell you - I'll take untyped languages any day of the week over that clusterfuck. Personally - I also think people really underestimate just how much the tooling around types has improved over the last 20 years. If I'm having to try to look up the difference between iBrowserInterface6 and iBrowserInterface5 and…

completely agree. but I felt like even then it was clear that types were a good idea and the implementations were not. For instance I started programming on Java 4 or 5 and the types were pretty bad---but still it was obviously the right way to go compared to JS or, god forbid, shell.

> but still it was obviously the right way to go compared to JS or, god forbid, shell.

I just don't think this is true.

Frankly - it's hard to argue this at all (even today) given that JS is the dominate language on the planet, and it lacks types... as does python, which had a reputation for decades as THE language to use to teach new folks to code. Or take PHP which dominated server development for a LOOONG time: also lacks types. Ruby on Rails has a wonderful reputation as the "get shit done" framework: no types.

Types are good for modern software companies, where code size has ballooned up very high (common to work on a codebase with hundreds of thousands of lines) or teams are large (50+ developers) and terrible if you just want to hammer out something that works as a solo dev.

Do I like types today? Sure - the tooling is solid, and I work on large codebases with large teams.

Did I like types as a solo dev at 3 person startup? no.

Post reply on HN