3 ms·

To be fair, one can also stick to .js files and use TS in checkJs mode, in which case it uses jsDoc comments to add types information, so there is no extra step

To be fair, one can also stick to .js files and use TS in checkJs mode, in which case it uses jsDoc comments to add types information, so there is no extra step to strip types. The downside is that a few features don't have a jsDoc equivalent. But it would already catch most of the things you'd use a type checker for, without the hassle of going full Typescript: you could even completely remove typescript from the project and it would still work given they're just JS comments.

lewisl9029 9y ago
Right, that's a great point. If the set of features that aren't supported in the jsDoc equivalent are the same set of features that end up requiring runtime transforms, then I can picture this to be an excellent way to use TypeScript the same way I do with Flow (which also supports a comment-mode syntax, but it doesn't have as compelling a use case in Flow since the standard syntax doesn't require any transformations to begin with).