3 ms·

Good point! I was talking about noImplicitAny; strictNullChecks is worth the 'hassle' from the start.

• ash 10y ago
  Why couldn't you use explicit `any` type when you 'need to get shit done'?
  • mercer 10y ago
    Mostly because it caused a huge list of error messages that I found difficult to get rid of. Some of it libraries, IIRC, and some of it my own code. Perhaps for some this would encourage them to one-by-one squash these messages, but in my case it made me go for what was familiar and not written in angry and red letters. I found it easier to introduce TypeScript from an opt-in perspective.
• WorldMaker 10y ago
  Explicit any is usually also easy enough of a hassle to deal with: when you get a compiler complaint add an `: any` or `as any` somewhere and whatever necessary parentheses to scope that right. Optional: treat `: any` and `as any` as TODO or HACK markers to return to in the fullness of time (refactoring/fixing). Dealing with other people's modules has also gotten much easier in recent versions of Typescript. To define a module name as any-typed the boilerplate has shrunk to a bare minimum: declare module 'name-of-the-module' Even better, module names in recent Typescript versions accept wildcards: declare module 'some-big-node-library/**/*' declare module '**/*.css' declare module '**/*!text'