4 ms·
On point 2, I don't think an optional type checker has any real downsides that I can think of (optional because with typescript you don't have to add type annot
by mordocai 10y ago
On point 2, I don't think an optional type checker has any real downsides that I can think of (optional because with typescript you don't have to add type annotations to your code). It helps with debugging and possibly performance but you can choose not to use it.
The rest of your comment I agree with.
- doodpants 10y agoI have no experience with TypeScript, but in general the downside of optional language features is when you're working with a team, and different people end up using different dialects of the language.
- chimeracoder 10y agoThat doesn't really apply here, because type annotations have no runtime effect. They're effectively comments.
- SonicSoul 10y agoyou could say that about any high level language. i.e. that it's effectively metadata few levels above metal ignored at runtime. But it is relevant here because the relevant part is working with application code within a team half of which may choose to use optional features
- jaredklewis 10y agoThe content of comments isn't enforced by the compiler, so I would say they are not very comment-like.
- Touche 10y agoIt's just weird to compare philosophically different languages. ClojureScript fans are never going to switch to TypeScript. So saying TypeScript has won the transpiler wars is hilariously wrong. Comparing TypeScript to transpilers in the same space, like Flow and Dart makes sense. They're trying to accomplish similar goals at least.
- ratbeard 10y agoA downside is everyone on your team has to learn how to use it.