71–80 of 400 posts
I haven't worked on any projects that were large enough to warrant type checking or where I felt it would make a huge difference. Also I find it a bit verbose and ugly and I'm just not a fan of pseduo Javascript languages that need to be compiled down into JavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
About 95% of React components I see in the wild are in TypeScript. The most rapidly growing JS backend framework (Nest) is in TS. Deno, the evolution of Node, is based on TS. Pretty much everything in the JavaScript OSS world has TS options or is based on TS. I doubt Coffeescript ever saw this scale of adoption.
As much as I like Anders work, it is impossible to understand modern TypeScript without looking into tsconfig.json before looking into source code.
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.
I often write the program in TypeScript types/interfaces first because it forces me to think about the data flow both in and out. In my opinion, data, not code, is the most important thing about a program.
While I'm fan of statically typing, there is something with Typescript I don't like, but don't know exactly what it is. In my day-to-day it's mostly Kotlin and Elm, which also are both statically typed, which I don't mind and mostly don't even notice. 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 t…
> 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. I’m curious - how do Elm and Kotlin solve these problems in a way that balances the often competing goals of “add types to reduce errors” vs “have a high productivity environment where it’s quick and easy for en…
Are there big companies still doing untyped JS at scale out there? I'm not a frontend person and I always disliked dynamic type systems. But I vaguely remember the skepticism when Angular moved to TS. To me it made a lot of sense that most projects at Google, MS and the like would hugely benefit from a language that is kind of a C# on the JS runtime. And in 2021 I see TS pretty much everywhere, but maybe I'm missing…
In my team people object to TS due to a few things: additional complexity, additional build step, build time increase, copy-pasting code around (to console, code snippets etc.) does not work anymore (but last time we talked it was soon after coffeescript -> esmodules migration and I guess everyone was tired of coffeescript which might have affected the mood). There's no unanimous consensus that TS is all gold; some p…
Don't want to oversimplify since the article has some useful insights, but overall it reads like a typical transition from thinking static typing is a burden to realizing type safety can be incredibly useful. I distinctly remember that in college I believed the history of programming languages is purely evolutionary in the sense that newer languages are objectively better than older ones. As in - people wrote assembl…
Of the languages you listed, Java is the new kid on the block. Python is older than Java.
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.
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.
TypeScript brought something good for the JS ecosystem (although Flow did it too, in a different way) and it doesn't look like anything will be able to replace it at what it does anytime soon.
Are there big companies still doing untyped JS at scale out there? I'm not a frontend person and I always disliked dynamic type systems. But I vaguely remember the skepticism when Angular moved to TS. To me it made a lot of sense that most projects at Google, MS and the like would hugely benefit from a language that is kind of a C# on the JS runtime. And in 2021 I see TS pretty much everywhere, but maybe I'm missing…
In my team people object to TS due to a few things: additional complexity, additional build step, build time increase, copy-pasting code around (to console, code snippets etc.) does not work anymore (but last time we talked it was soon after coffeescript -> esmodules migration and I guess everyone was tired of coffeescript which might have affected the mood). There's no unanimous consensus that TS is all gold; some p…
I don't think type docs are useless - on the contrary, they are super helpful while migrating. But I think this trend is indicative of a different issue - what we are really seeing is more of a protest that JS needs native optional type support as soon as possible.
It's probably worth taking a step back and interrogating why the actual "Why was I Anti-TypeScript?" a little bit more and use it as an opportunity for broader self development. The author didn't use and understand something, and rather than trying to they instead just defaulted to rejection. It's midly disapointing seeing this in people who label themselves as "Senior".
Seniors occasionally rejecting this or that, seniors occasionally blindly accepting this or that are both completely normal in majority of seniors.