4 ms·
I would add 1) Starts with `strict: true` 2) Favor interface over class 3) Functional first, OO as needed 4) Avoid Java way of coding, DI, Class for everything.
by jeremychone 8y ago
I would add
1) Starts with `strict: true`
2) Favor interface over class
3) Functional first, OO as needed
4) Avoid Java way of coding, DI, Class for everything.
- thoughtspile 8y agoNice ones! My first TS project was with a C# guy, so we had some virtual classes, no good) Anyways, the TS community itself does not seem to enforce OOP stuff too much — Angular / mobx do. On the other hand, I don't know why the DI stuff never caught on in he js world — it should be good for testablity (better than build-time magic at least)?
- jeremychone 8y agoHonestly, DI is really a thing of the OO-Obsessed world when everything has to be a class and instantiated. In the JS/TS world, we mostly use Interface/Type to describe constraints, and most of the module export function or group of methods in a const (namespace, module,...) but the caller does not have to know if it is a class or just a object with some methods, and does not do a "new ..." or @inject... anymore. Much simpler, much more intent driven, and you can remove a lot of boilerplate code (which DI still is) Now, one of the value of DI is for testing, and one way to accomplish module compartmentalization, is with module-alias. It does not the granularity that DI needs, but I would argue that if more is needed, it perhaps because the testing and mocking got a little too out of hands. In our experience, thanks to Kubernetes, we try to mock less, and have our test running mostly with real services.