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

When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

khalilstemmler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 244 posts

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#11

Post by vp8989 »

externalreality wrote: post #2

I agree with this article. Good stuff. One minor gripe: > if you care about the code, you need to have unit tests for it. That's not really true. You can test at a differently granularity and still have the same confidence in your code. Scores of brittle unit tests crowding your productivity is not what you do to code you care about. I wish people would just stop propagating this detrimental rumor that is backed by z…

+1, though this is an unpopular opinion.

IMO appreciation for automated test ROI is a great litmus test for a "good programmer".

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#12

Post by a_wild_dandan »

parhamn wrote: post #6

Why does everyone treat TypeScript like a full language? Besides some features like generics 98% of it is just javascript with type annotations (sorta similar, including in syntax, to py3 with annotations). And in that view its probably foolish not to use it as the cost of these annotations is so low relative to the refactoring/safety/easy-of-use/code-completion/etc it offers. These type annotations are so easy to ad…

TypeScript is such an unbelievably powerful add-on that I simply refuse to use vanillaJS unless absolutely necessary. It eliminates entire classes of bugs, encourages me to write better code by thinking in JS about contracts (interfaces), and vastly improves my productivity with the aforementioned annotations. ("What was the signature for method X of class Y in library Z? Ah, that's it. Thanks, TS/VSCode!")

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#13

Post by bengotow »

parhamn wrote: post #6

Why does everyone treat TypeScript like a full language? Besides some features like generics 98% of it is just javascript with type annotations (sorta similar, including in syntax, to py3 with annotations). And in that view its probably foolish not to use it as the cost of these annotations is so low relative to the refactoring/safety/easy-of-use/code-completion/etc it offers. These type annotations are so easy to ad…

I know... when to use typescript = all the time? It's not a huge shift.

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#14

Post by leeoniya »

externalreality wrote: post #2

I agree with this article. Good stuff. One minor gripe: > if you care about the code, you need to have unit tests for it. That's not really true. You can test at a differently granularity and still have the same confidence in your code. Scores of brittle unit tests crowding your productivity is not what you do to code you care about. I wish people would just stop propagating this detrimental rumor that is backed by z…

agree. Acceptance Tests hit the sweet spot for me in terms of productivity and quickly catching causes of regressions (coupled with a well-groomed, atomic commit log).

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#15

Post by bengale »

chmln wrote: post #3

> will most often write vanilla React.js apps when: the codebase is small This one never ceases to amaze me. Any codebase is small, until it gets big. And once it's big, the effort to rewrite is hard to justify. You don't build a house and add the foundation later.

You don't need to rewrite to add types.

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#16

Post by tyingq »

fxfan wrote: post #4

4 of the most popular language creators here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csL8DLXGNlU agree that type systems are useful. I would suggest definitely not using Vanilla JS. There are excellent type systems over JS, TypeScript, Scala.JS, BuckleScript to name a few each with their pros and cons (I don't know what cons BuckleScript has though, maybe relatively smaller lib-ecosystem)

Larry Wall is endorsing strong types? I'll have to watch that now. I guess you can use Perl 6 in a way that approximates it, but it's very optional.

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#17

Post by leeoniya »

i recently learned you can actually have typescript annotations without [imo] polluting the syntax or requiring the TS compiler:

http://seg.phault.net/blog/2017/10/typescript-without-transp...

does anyone know if there are limitations to this style?

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#18

Post by humbleMouse »

Typescript is wonderful, especially as someone used to writing a lot of java/groovy. Typescript is like pouring cement around your javascript house of cards. It makes writing front end code painless and predictable.

It also has amazing tooling in intelli-j. Code completion, linting, package recognition, all the good stuff.

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#19

Post by amzans »

chmln wrote: post #3

> will most often write vanilla React.js apps when: the codebase is small This one never ceases to amaze me. Any codebase is small, until it gets big. And once it's big, the effort to rewrite is hard to justify. You don't build a house and add the foundation later.

I couldn't agree more with you on this.

I often see good, actually simple solutions get turned down due to people saying "that's too complicated for what we need", only to later hear, after a couple of months in production, that nobody wants to touch the codebase anymore since it's unapproachable and the rewrite will not happen due to high risk since it's critical production code now.

Re: When to Use TypeScript – A Detailed Guide Through Common Scenarios

#20

Post by wrestlerman »

chmln wrote: post #3

> will most often write vanilla React.js apps when: the codebase is small This one never ceases to amaze me. Any codebase is small, until it gets big. And once it's big, the effort to rewrite is hard to justify. You don't build a house and add the foundation later.

I don't know why people make such a big deal of types. They don't add that much time to typing the code.

I also have noticed that if you write daily using some code style (for example using types) it takes time to switch to another style, for example without types. So you are better of using types, because you are used to it and you will code faster that way anyway.

Post reply on HN