3 ms·

This really depends on what you care about. Flow is much better at ensuring type safety in your code while TypeScript has some pretty glaring holes in this res

This really depends on what you care about. Flow is much better at ensuring type safety in your code while TypeScript has some pretty glaring holes in this respect. In particular, TypeScript allows covariant assignment and param passing which makes it really easy to write unsafe code.

Arnavion 7y ago
The covariant param passing was fixed some time ago with the (now on-by-default) `strictFunctionTypes` option. Eg `function f(cb: (_: Animal) => void) { cb(new Dog()); }` can no longer be used as `function takes_cat(_: Cat) { } f(takes_cat);` Assignment is still there though (ie you can still assign a `Cat[]` to an `Animal[]` and push a `new Dog()` into it).
- kevinb7 7y ago
  I believe that `strictFunctionTypes` only applies to callbacks. TypeScript is okay with the following code even with that option turned on: class Animal {} class Cat extends Animal { meow() {} } class Dog extends Animal { woof() {} } function foo(animals: Animal[]) { animals.push(new Dog) } const cats: Cat[] = [new Cat]; foo(cats); https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/#code/MYGwhgzhAECCB2BLAtmE0DeBfAUKSMAwmAC7QCmAHiefACYwIpqbTLkD2A7gBQCUmLNFz4o0ACIcA5hWq0GcJKnQZoXDhwBm-QcJw5NAV3jASiDvGiaNPMErQQAXIuYgA2gF0BGHNGh3XCAA6AAdDCAALHnhyLglpPhxcPAsIMmBSJ2hiEk9oAF5oNxi4nI8Abn1rDh4Mkgg+SqA https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/#code/MYGwhgzhAECCB2BLAt...
  - Arnavion 7y ago
    Your example is identical to the case I covered in the second paragraph of my comment. ie your code compiles because it is legal to assign a `Cat[]` to an `Animal[]`, as I said. When you mentioned "covariant param passing" I assumed you were referring to the long-lasting issue about callbacks, hence my original comment mentioning that that issue has been fixed. It's not useful to differentiate between "assigning a value to a variable of a certain type" and "passing a value to a function parameter of a certain type" because those are identical.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Arnavion 7y ago

The covariant param passing was fixed some time ago with the (now on-by-default) `strictFunctionTypes` option. Eg `function f(cb: (_: Animal) => void) { cb(new Dog()); }` can no longer be used as `function takes_cat(_: Cat) { } f(takes_cat);` Assignment is still there though (ie you can still assign a `Cat[]` to an `Animal[]` and push a `new Dog()` into it).

kevinb7 7y ago
I believe that `strictFunctionTypes` only applies to callbacks. TypeScript is okay with the following code even with that option turned on: class Animal {} class Cat extends Animal { meow() {} } class Dog extends Animal { woof() {} } function foo(animals: Animal[]) { animals.push(new Dog) } const cats: Cat[] = [new Cat]; foo(cats); https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/#code/MYGwhgzhAECCB2BLAtmE0DeBfAUKSMAwmAC7QCmAHiefACYwIpqbTLkD2A7gBQCUmLNFz4o0ACIcA5hWq0GcJKnQZoXDhwBm-QcJw5NAV3jASiDvGiaNPMErQQAXIuYgA2gF0BGHNGh3XCAA6AAdDCAALHnhyLglpPhxcPAsIMmBSJ2hiEk9oAF5oNxi4nI8Abn1rDh4Mkgg+SqA https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/#code/MYGwhgzhAECCB2BLAt...
- Arnavion 7y ago
  Your example is identical to the case I covered in the second paragraph of my comment. ie your code compiles because it is legal to assign a `Cat[]` to an `Animal[]`, as I said. When you mentioned "covariant param passing" I assumed you were referring to the long-lasting issue about callbacks, hence my original comment mentioning that that issue has been fixed. It's not useful to differentiate between "assigning a value to a variable of a certain type" and "passing a value to a function parameter of a certain type" because those are identical.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]