TypeScript Features to Avoid
executeprogram.com
TypeScript Features to Avoid
1–10 of 212 posts
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#2tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations.
Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorators? JS already gets new features which break backward-compatibility, mine as well add features which fix compatibility with TypeScript.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#3tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations. Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorat…
I completely disagree with that article. Instead of "avoid this or that", one should be understanding how Typescript compiler works and not treat it as a blackbox. Ultimately, Typescript does compile to Javascript.
One cannot use Typescript without understanding Javascript, since every single Javascript library is not written in Typescript.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#4tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations. Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorat…
This is how ES6 got classes. Developers wanted JS to be some other language they favored more. In that case specifically people were really hoping to make the language look and feel like Java, probably because they were trained in Java and couldn’t figure out functions as first class citizens.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#5What is there left to use in the end? Type annotations?
Maybe recommend not to use Typescript altogether then. Their only reasoning for this seems to be that the features "be more likely to break when using build tools other than the official TypeScript compiler".
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#6tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations. Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorat…
I'd go further. There's no strong argument for why code-gen is bad. Why is a compilation process that is simply "remove type annotations" inherently better than one that emits code, or does code transformations, other than just personal preference, aesthetics, or simplicity?
About the only positive that is qualitatively different is the simplicity of comparing the output to the input. But for someone building a large typescript codebase, and who uses sourcemaps, it's not really a big issue. There are many many languages that compile-to-JS, and I feel that insisting on 'purity' for purity's sake isn't really a good justification. That, TS as a super-set of JS instead of as a isomorphic mapping between constructs is a perfectly viable way to innovate in the language space.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#7tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations. Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorat…
I completely disagree with that article. Instead of "avoid this or that", one should be understanding how Typescript compiler works and not treat it as a blackbox. Ultimately, Typescript does compile to Javascript. One cannot use Typescript without understanding Javascript, since every single Javascript library is not written in Typescript.
One should also understand the machine code that a traditional language compiles to and how the CPU executes it. Ultimately, your language compiles to machine code. /s
No one should need or worry about what an abstraction compiles to unless they’re specifically working on that abstraction or there’s a language bug.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#8I've never had any issues with enums, namespaces or private keywords (can't speak for decorators as I haven't used them yet). Although I do understand the reasoning for using the '#somePrivateField' rather than 'private somePrivateField'.
But features like enums are part of the reason why we even have tools like TypeScript, because JavaScript lacks these features.
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#9tldr: avoid features in TypeScript which must emit runtime code when compiling to JavaScript - that is, any TypeScript-exclusive feature that’s not type annotations. Honestly most of these features are really useful, and as someone who never wants to work in raw JavaScript, I wish they were just added to JavaScript instead. Why shouldn’t JavaScript have enums, namespaces, private modifiers which aren’t #, and decorat…
This is how ES6 got classes. Developers wanted JS to be some other language they favored more. In that case specifically people were really hoping to make the language look and feel like Java, probably because they were trained in Java and couldn’t figure out functions as first class citizens.
I think class were needed because too many developers were creating their own (incompatible) class systems on top of prototypal inheritance (which is more verbose).
The problem with Typescript is that too many Typescript developers don't understand Javascript itself, which is an completely different issue. That and the obsession for some to reproduce JEE everywhere including in the browser...
Re: TypeScript Features to Avoid
#10My problem with enums isn’t so much that it breaks type-level extension, it’s that it breaks structural typing.
I don’t particularly care what the generated JS looks like when I do all my work in TS, but I do care that the type system of the language I do work in works in a consistent manner.