4 ms·

I assume we agree that "productivity" doesn't just cover writing code, but also avoiding/finding bugs and maintaining the code over a long period by different p

by Rochus 6y ago

I assume we agree that "productivity" doesn't just cover writing code, but also avoiding/finding bugs and maintaining the code over a long period by different people. TypeScript is a big progress over JavaScript in this respect.

mcv 6y ago
That's not my experience, sadly. We switched from Javascript to Typescript over a year ago, on a fairly new project, but it mostly results in more errors that need to be fixed, that wouldn't have been errors in Javascript. Being able to specify interfaces is absolutely nice, but overall I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble.
- Sharlin 6y ago
  What sort of errors wouldn’t have been errors in JS?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    The ones that are hellishly difficult to diagnose bugs waiting to be discovered I'll bet.
    - mcv 6y ago
      No, just the trivial boilerplate stuff. Forgetting to declare `this` as a parameter, for example.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    There are some "cute" uses of truthiness checks that work in JS (and, in some cases, weren't flagged as errors by earlier versions of TS) that are probably a bad idea and are trivial to render more-explicit, so better, but do technically run OK. Example: "if(obj.some_method) {obj.some_method();}". Not an uncommon form in JS in the wild, but TS (correctly) flags it as a problem. Otherwise I dunno what this could be. Especially what TS could be disallowing that'd be all of: valid in JS, a good idea in JS, and especially time-consuming to fix.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- stareatgoats 6y ago
  > sadly. We switched from Javascript to Typescript (...) I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. Judging by the seismic shift in the industry away from vanilla JS towards TS I'd say that qualifies as an extraordinary claim. It would be interesting to hear some of the details behind your experience.
  - mcv 6y ago
    It's mostly a lot of extra boilerplate that's suddenly required. We're using Vue, and every time we write a method or computed property for a component that uses the this pointer, we need to pass it (this: any) as parameter. Any, because every component is different, has different properties, and it's constantly changing, so writing interfaces for those isn't worth the effort, since they only call their own methods anyway. Forget it, and it might still work fine locally, but the build server complains, so we have to fix it. Most of the functional errors will be caught either by unit tests or by functionality noticeably not working. These are not things that would be caught by Typescript anyway. The irony is that we're using typescript in the front-end, where it mostly gets in the way. I think Typescript would have been more useful in the backend, but we're not using it there, because originally our backend was trivially simple. Now that the backend is becoming bigger, I can imagine Typescript would be more useful there. It could be that Typescript doesn't work well with our version of Vue. (I think the latest version is designed around Typescript which will hopefully make the process a lot easier.)
    - Jetrel 6y ago
      > These are not things that would be caught by Typescript anyway. In my experience working with React, which is pretty heavily invested in typescript these days, if you go reasonably deep on doing typescript interfaces, it's like a switch gets flipped. A light dusting of typescript really does barely anything; it's just boilerplate. But once you get up to about 80-90% coverage, it's like a switch gets flipped. All of a sudden it's really, really good at detecting discrepancies - I had a thing I was working on today, where I had a cute little svg icon component in the giant SPA program we're writing - I was just reusing the thing, and attaching a click handler to it, and all of a sudden - this component we hadn't touched in months, typescript starts griping about it. And I'm like "oh come on, this is so basic - what the hell could be wrong about passing in a simple onclick handler?" Well - turns out nobody had ever needed to use the "event" param on that function, so it didn't even use one internally - what I was passing in, in plain JS, would have just been thrown away, because the internal 'passthrough' version of the function had no parameter at all. And I didn't notice it in light testing (we have TS set to emit our program even if it's failing tests). I tested the component, and because the behavior's invisible/internal, it seemed like it was probably fine. Maybe I would have caught it with really earnest, aggressive testing later, but I didn't even need to - typescript just nailed it instantly. I've had the privilege of working on some game development stuff outside of a web stack, and holy smokes does working in a complete, algebraically typed language change everything. When you go from 80-90% type coverage, to "hard 100%", it's just a complete 180°. It's just _freaky_ how good it is at catching errors. I'll change one little thing, and it can tell me "oh yeah - you know that cutscene an hour into the game? Yeah, you broke that." It's uncanny. It just absolutely changes everything about how I work.
- aszen 6y ago
  Typescript compiler can be configured to silence many kinds of errors, these are especially useful while migrating a large Javascript codebase. Also look at typescript not just from an error catching perspective but also from a tooling and documentation point of view. With types at hand, modern ides work much better and reading types often helps in understanding the code. All that said if the project is small and more of a throw away with only a few members contributing code typescript may not add benefits.
- maedla 6y ago
  Honestly it sounds like it saved you some trouble.
  - mcv 6y ago
    It didn't. It caused it. I honestly wanted to believe in the value of Typescript and was enthusiastic about the switch, but it really hasn't proven itself over the past year.
dgb23 6y ago
I'm not convinced of TS as of yet for my needs. The vast majority of bugs and complexity in UI code seem to come from state management, asynchronicity, complex validation and the like. Static typing doesn't help with any of these or at least not to a degree that is sufficient. TS also doesn't seem to help at all with performance, which I find to be the most important trade-off for introducing types and the implied complexity. I'm heavily biased towards small teams and small to medium programs though. I can at least imagine how TS improves ad-hoc documentation in some cases, which can definitely help in the "maintaining the code over a long period by different people"-scenarios.

by Rochus 6y ago

mcv 6y ago

That's not my experience, sadly. We switched from Javascript to Typescript over a year ago, on a fairly new project, but it mostly results in more errors that need to be fixed, that wouldn't have been errors in Javascript. Being able to specify interfaces is absolutely nice, but overall I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble.

Sharlin 6y ago
What sort of errors wouldn’t have been errors in JS?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  The ones that are hellishly difficult to diagnose bugs waiting to be discovered I'll bet.
  - mcv 6y ago
    No, just the trivial boilerplate stuff. Forgetting to declare `this` as a parameter, for example.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  There are some "cute" uses of truthiness checks that work in JS (and, in some cases, weren't flagged as errors by earlier versions of TS) that are probably a bad idea and are trivial to render more-explicit, so better, but do technically run OK. Example: "if(obj.some_method) {obj.some_method();}". Not an uncommon form in JS in the wild, but TS (correctly) flags it as a problem. Otherwise I dunno what this could be. Especially what TS could be disallowing that'd be all of: valid in JS, a good idea in JS, and especially time-consuming to fix.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
stareatgoats 6y ago
> sadly. We switched from Javascript to Typescript (...) I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. Judging by the seismic shift in the industry away from vanilla JS towards TS I'd say that qualifies as an extraordinary claim. It would be interesting to hear some of the details behind your experience.
- mcv 6y ago
  It's mostly a lot of extra boilerplate that's suddenly required. We're using Vue, and every time we write a method or computed property for a component that uses the this pointer, we need to pass it (this: any) as parameter. Any, because every component is different, has different properties, and it's constantly changing, so writing interfaces for those isn't worth the effort, since they only call their own methods anyway. Forget it, and it might still work fine locally, but the build server complains, so we have to fix it. Most of the functional errors will be caught either by unit tests or by functionality noticeably not working. These are not things that would be caught by Typescript anyway. The irony is that we're using typescript in the front-end, where it mostly gets in the way. I think Typescript would have been more useful in the backend, but we're not using it there, because originally our backend was trivially simple. Now that the backend is becoming bigger, I can imagine Typescript would be more useful there. It could be that Typescript doesn't work well with our version of Vue. (I think the latest version is designed around Typescript which will hopefully make the process a lot easier.)
  - Jetrel 6y ago
    > These are not things that would be caught by Typescript anyway. In my experience working with React, which is pretty heavily invested in typescript these days, if you go reasonably deep on doing typescript interfaces, it's like a switch gets flipped. A light dusting of typescript really does barely anything; it's just boilerplate. But once you get up to about 80-90% coverage, it's like a switch gets flipped. All of a sudden it's really, really good at detecting discrepancies - I had a thing I was working on today, where I had a cute little svg icon component in the giant SPA program we're writing - I was just reusing the thing, and attaching a click handler to it, and all of a sudden - this component we hadn't touched in months, typescript starts griping about it. And I'm like "oh come on, this is so basic - what the hell could be wrong about passing in a simple onclick handler?" Well - turns out nobody had ever needed to use the "event" param on that function, so it didn't even use one internally - what I was passing in, in plain JS, would have just been thrown away, because the internal 'passthrough' version of the function had no parameter at all. And I didn't notice it in light testing (we have TS set to emit our program even if it's failing tests). I tested the component, and because the behavior's invisible/internal, it seemed like it was probably fine. Maybe I would have caught it with really earnest, aggressive testing later, but I didn't even need to - typescript just nailed it instantly. I've had the privilege of working on some game development stuff outside of a web stack, and holy smokes does working in a complete, algebraically typed language change everything. When you go from 80-90% type coverage, to "hard 100%", it's just a complete 180°. It's just _freaky_ how good it is at catching errors. I'll change one little thing, and it can tell me "oh yeah - you know that cutscene an hour into the game? Yeah, you broke that." It's uncanny. It just absolutely changes everything about how I work.
aszen 6y ago
Typescript compiler can be configured to silence many kinds of errors, these are especially useful while migrating a large Javascript codebase. Also look at typescript not just from an error catching perspective but also from a tooling and documentation point of view. With types at hand, modern ides work much better and reading types often helps in understanding the code. All that said if the project is small and more of a throw away with only a few members contributing code typescript may not add benefits.
maedla 6y ago
Honestly it sounds like it saved you some trouble.
- mcv 6y ago
  It didn't. It caused it. I honestly wanted to believe in the value of Typescript and was enthusiastic about the switch, but it really hasn't proven itself over the past year.

dgb23 6y ago

I'm not convinced of TS as of yet for my needs. The vast majority of bugs and complexity in UI code seem to come from state management, asynchronicity, complex validation and the like. Static typing doesn't help with any of these or at least not to a degree that is sufficient. TS also doesn't seem to help at all with performance, which I find to be the most important trade-off for introducing types and the implied complexity. I'm heavily biased towards small teams and small to medium programs though. I can at least imagine how TS improves ad-hoc documentation in some cases, which can definitely help in the "maintaining the code over a long period by different people"-scenarios.