5 ms·

This is kind of a subtle idea, but in some instances, the illusion of safety can be harmful. It is occasionally (not always) better not to give people the illus

This is kind of a subtle idea, but in some instances, the illusion of safety can be harmful. It is occasionally (not always) better not to give people the illusion of safety when that safety doesn't actually exist. Sometimes putting an ineffective railing along a mountain path increases accidents, because it's human nature for people walking on that path to watch their footing less when they see the railing. >> Do not use random libraries. A good library should have even some basic docs outline its API and how to use it. > A whole lot of the time, especially in Javascript land you will join projects where libraries are being used, and where documentation is lacking. Your advice here is basically to not be part of those projects? Instead of developing and using tooling that will ensure that these situations no longer happen? I'm not here to hate on Typescript, I think it has its uses. I use Typescript in some places. I generally avoid it for personal projects, but I would probably encourage it for larger orgs. But the idea that Typescript protects you from needing to care about interfaces is exactly the problem with over-reliance on Typescript, and is the source of a lot of really badly written code that treats interface design like an afterthought. If you're using Typescript for documentation and you're treating it like a tool, you can write some really elegant code, you can catch some shallow bugs around types and assumptions, you can integrate your documentation into your IDE. If you're looking at Typescript and saying, "this is an efficient way for me to document what my code does", then this is all very good. But if you're using Typescript and saying, "now I can pull in any dependency I want", then Typescript is doing you more harm than good. The specific advice orange gives in those two sentences is good advice. If Typescript is giving you a false sense of confidence about using random libraries, then that's a real negative. I use both pure JS and Typescript almost daily, and I consume plenty of dependencies written in Typescript. I still occasionally need to debug the stack traces in those dependencies. I still occasionally need to read through their source code to figure out what they're doing. Badly documented dependencies are not a problem that Typescript solves.

Udik 7y ago
> in some instances, the illusion of safety can be harmful > you can catch some shallow bugs around types > If Typescript is giving you a false sense of confidence about using random libraries > Badly documented dependencies are not a problem that Typescript solves. Seriously, what is your claim? That if you have a badly documented third party library with wrong typings then typescript doesn't help? Well, that's some news! Try the same library with no documentation at all then, so you won't get a false sense of safety. If that is your problem, why don't you just avoid importing typings for libraries? And I don't get this insistence on bugs and safety. Sure, typescript probably prevents you from doing really stupid stuff sometimes, but that's not the main reason I use it. I use it because it both allows me to write much more complex code and speeds up dramatically the development- because the tool takes on itself what is otherwise a heavy cognitive load: remembering and inferring interfaces and signatures that are there all the time, even if implicitly.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > If that is your problem, why don't you just avoid importing typings for libraries? Yes? That's exactly what people are doing when they import a dependency written in Typescript into a pure JS project. > A whole lot of the time, especially in Javascript land you will join projects where libraries are being used, and where documentation is lacking. Your advice here is basically to not be part of those projects? Instead of developing and using tooling that will ensure that these situations no longer happen? My claim is that Typescript does not solve the problem of joining a project with poorly written, undocumented libraries. I'm not bashing on Typescript. If the primary way you use it is as an organizational tool to reduce cognitive load and make interfaces more explicit, then that's great. You're using Typescript as intended. And there are some scenarios where a compile-time type-checker is just obviously the right tool for the job. You started this thread by asking how JS devs could manage 3rd-party interfaces without Typescript. I assume you genuinely want an answer to that question. The answer is that for some people on some projects, using well defined interfaces and keeping a reference page open with documentation is about as fast and about as easy as using Typescript, and that following that process doesn't increase their bug count or cognitive load to the point where they feel the need to introduce a compilation step.
  - Udik 7y ago
    > Yes? That's exactly what people are doing when they import a dependency written in Typescript into a pure JS project. Except that in this way they also lose good typings for any other library and for their own code as well. I understand an outdated definition file can be annoying, but there can be various ways to only ignore type definitions for that specific library. > My claim is that Typescript does not solve the problem of joining a project with poorly written, undocumented libraries. That is a problem that no language or tool can solve. > You started this thread by asking how JS devs could manage 3rd-party interfaces without Typescript. No, I didn't, you're confusing me with someone else. Inertiatic asked at the beginning of this thread "Who are these mythical people? [the developers who never make typings mistakes] Do they just magically decipher what interface an argument conforms to? What methods are accessible on a returned result from any random library they're using?" Then the thread proceeded by 1) ignoring the first part of his question, about having to remember signatures in general, including of your own code; 2) interpreted "random" in a strictly negative way, as if it meant "any junk library" instead of "every library".

Udik 7y ago

> in some instances, the illusion of safety can be harmful > you can catch some shallow bugs around types > If Typescript is giving you a false sense of confidence about using random libraries > Badly documented dependencies are not a problem that Typescript solves. Seriously, what is your claim? That if you have a badly documented third party library with wrong typings then typescript doesn't help? Well, that's some news! Try the same library with no documentation at all then, so you won't get a false sense of safety. If that is your problem, why don't you just avoid importing typings for libraries? And I don't get this insistence on bugs and safety. Sure, typescript probably prevents you from doing really stupid stuff sometimes, but that's not the main reason I use it. I use it because it both allows me to write much more complex code and speeds up dramatically the development- because the tool takes on itself what is otherwise a heavy cognitive load: remembering and inferring interfaces and signatures that are there all the time, even if implicitly.

danShumway 7y ago
> If that is your problem, why don't you just avoid importing typings for libraries? Yes? That's exactly what people are doing when they import a dependency written in Typescript into a pure JS project. > A whole lot of the time, especially in Javascript land you will join projects where libraries are being used, and where documentation is lacking. Your advice here is basically to not be part of those projects? Instead of developing and using tooling that will ensure that these situations no longer happen? My claim is that Typescript does not solve the problem of joining a project with poorly written, undocumented libraries. I'm not bashing on Typescript. If the primary way you use it is as an organizational tool to reduce cognitive load and make interfaces more explicit, then that's great. You're using Typescript as intended. And there are some scenarios where a compile-time type-checker is just obviously the right tool for the job. You started this thread by asking how JS devs could manage 3rd-party interfaces without Typescript. I assume you genuinely want an answer to that question. The answer is that for some people on some projects, using well defined interfaces and keeping a reference page open with documentation is about as fast and about as easy as using Typescript, and that following that process doesn't increase their bug count or cognitive load to the point where they feel the need to introduce a compilation step.
- Udik 7y ago
  > Yes? That's exactly what people are doing when they import a dependency written in Typescript into a pure JS project. Except that in this way they also lose good typings for any other library and for their own code as well. I understand an outdated definition file can be annoying, but there can be various ways to only ignore type definitions for that specific library. > My claim is that Typescript does not solve the problem of joining a project with poorly written, undocumented libraries. That is a problem that no language or tool can solve. > You started this thread by asking how JS devs could manage 3rd-party interfaces without Typescript. No, I didn't, you're confusing me with someone else. Inertiatic asked at the beginning of this thread "Who are these mythical people? [the developers who never make typings mistakes] Do they just magically decipher what interface an argument conforms to? What methods are accessible on a returned result from any random library they're using?" Then the thread proceeded by 1) ignoring the first part of his question, about having to remember signatures in general, including of your own code; 2) interpreted "random" in a strictly negative way, as if it meant "any junk library" instead of "every library".