51–60 of 359 posts
They should just use deno to run their setup, there would be no compilation if they did that. ;) Someone is trying to rewrite tsc in rust for speed up here - https://github.com/swc-project/swc Cool project for runtime checking with ts - https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts Edit: Remove unmaintained runtime type checking library.
Instead of ts-runtime, use io-ts ( https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts ). That one is actually maintained, unlike ts-runtime!
But for anyone enjoying to specify their types in detail, have fun!
This is gonna be an unpopular opinion but as someone who learned to program in loosely typed languages, I have never seen the TS appeal. TS feels like something that was created to lure programmers who couldn’t wrap their heads around JS loose nature. Almost like it was created to convince Java and C# developers to use JS. It have never felt about it like something that would make my code better or more organized. It…
On the contrary, as somebody who learned programming with a mix of static and dynamic types, I felt like TypeScript showed me what a good type system was capable of in giving me the best of both worlds.
Instead of being pedantry, I felt like the type system was actually on my side for once and helping me to write correct code with fewer unaccounted-for corner cases and unexpected runtime crashes. And it does that while avoiding the feeling I got from previous statically-typed languages I used where the type system felt like a straight jacket incapable of expressing non-trivial concepts and relationships.
Why such a large, important project would want to drop static types is beyond me. > TypeScript isn’t proving itself helpful to organize Deno code. On the contrary, the Deno team is experiencing the opposite effect. One of the issues mentioned is that they ended up with duplicate independent Body classes in two locations This feels like process immaturity or unfamiliarity. Thousands of other projects manage to do just…
Lisp is large, important, and also not statically typed. It's worked out ok for Lisp programmers. JS itself isn't strongly typed and is the most successful and important language in the world (probably in the history of programming), so that's two game-changers that don't require static typing.
Remove the browser practical monopoly, and JS popularity would vanish.
This is gonna be an unpopular opinion but as someone who learned to program in loosely typed languages, I have never seen the TS appeal. TS feels like something that was created to lure programmers who couldn’t wrap their heads around JS loose nature. Almost like it was created to convince Java and C# developers to use JS. It have never felt about it like something that would make my code better or more organized. It…
For small projects, dynamically typed languages are fine. but as the project grows bigger, the static typing will help and will make thing simpler.
As the project grows, refactoring will be an issue. Static typing will make it simpler to refactor.
Tests are smaller.
Reading the code will be easier since you know the contract of functions.
Fewer runtime errors since most errors will be caught at compile time. Also, the stronger the type system it is, the more it will be caught at compile time.
I don't think it slows me down that much. It's a little more typing, and there is compile time overhead. In some cases, you have to work your way around the type system. But at least with Scala, I am confident my code will work as intended as long as it compiles successfully. I spend less time debugging in runtime and writing tests. I think static typing might save time in the long run but not short run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's plenty of huge software projects in dynamically typed languages. There are also huge classes of bugs that exist in these projects that a statically typed language completely eliminates! If they're running into trouble from having to have types, it's almost certainly design and architecture issue and does not make me think that deno is going to be a solid project.
I didn't read that types were causing problems. My understanding was TS, itself, was causing problems. Specifically waiting around for it to compile. Strong typing is from OOPS, itself an optional programming methodology. There are many JS programs that simply access other (JSON) objects directly without going through an interface. In these instances, typing is counterproductive. One of the beautiful things about JS…
At the end of the day those type exist in JavaScript. If you access ‘first_name’ instead of ‘firstname’ it will not work. The difference is that typescript would let you know before running the code instead of getting an obscure runtime error.
Has anyone else experienced these issues? This reads more like product placement for Deno than a sincere criticism of TS.
A sign of the times I guess that a build system requires 8gb of ram to run. Could be we're doing something wrong, but from what I understand we're using a pretty vanilla setup.
This is gonna be an unpopular opinion but as someone who learned to program in loosely typed languages, I have never seen the TS appeal. TS feels like something that was created to lure programmers who couldn’t wrap their heads around JS loose nature. Almost like it was created to convince Java and C# developers to use JS. It have never felt about it like something that would make my code better or more organized. It…
> TS feels like something that was created to lure programmers who couldn’t wrap their heads around JS loose nature. Almost like it was created to convince Java and C# developers to use JS. On the contrary, as somebody who learned programming with a mix of static and dynamic types, I felt like TypeScript showed me what a good type system was capable of in giving me the best of both worlds. Instead of being pedantry,…
This is gonna be an unpopular opinion but as someone who learned to program in loosely typed languages, I have never seen the TS appeal. TS feels like something that was created to lure programmers who couldn’t wrap their heads around JS loose nature. Almost like it was created to convince Java and C# developers to use JS. It have never felt about it like something that would make my code better or more organized. It…
"Pass in three parameters with a callback in the fourth position. The second param is configuration so pass in a string, but if you need to really customize stuff actually pass in an object instead and by the way if you don't have a third parameter then just chuck the callback there, why not!?"
Typescript is great in that somehow it is technically possible to write types for existing code written like this, but writing new code like that is cumbersome enough to prevent it.