4 ms·
The slide says by 'TypeScript'. Not by 'Types'. So the static code analysis of the typescript compiler would have catched the bugs. Without examples of those
by no_gravity 8y ago
The slide says by 'TypeScript'. Not by 'Types'.
So the static code analysis of the typescript compiler would have catched the bugs.
Without examples of those bugs it's hard to say if types play a role here.
It could very well be that most of these bugs would have been prevented by any static code analysis. Independent of the usage of types.
- bluepnume 8y agoSure -- but the majority of that static analysis (in the absence of type annotations) is inferring types and then running everything through the type-checker, right?
- danpalmer 8y agoFurthermore, a stronger type system than TypeScript's, Elm's for example, may have caught even more than 38%. For advanced type systems, it's often quite difficult to conceive of bugs that could not be caught by them, although they add a very large overhead.