3 ms·

Valid comments but there really is no reason not to use Typescript these days if you are considering JavaScript. Even for small/single-person projects there is

Valid comments but there really is no reason not to use Typescript these days if you are considering JavaScript. Even for small/single-person projects there is no reason not to use it given its benefits and the fact that it takes 10 minutes to learn if you are a JavaScript developer already.

brendanmc6 6y ago
I’ll die on that hill— back when I was interviewing for my next frontend position I told all my prospects I wasn’t interested in working for them if they aren’t using TypeScript or at least open to migrating. There really is no reason to use plain JS for anything!
- schwartzworld 6y ago
  > There really is no reason to use plain JS for anything unless you don't want to compile your code. I can spin up little projects that don't need a build step just fine.
schwartzworld 6y ago
Typescript programming invariably results in time spent figuring out how to properly type otherwise valid JavaScript code, ie debugging code that doesn't wind up in your app. In a large app, the types can be their own special form of spaghetti. The typing system is clunky and inelegant compared to Elm, which is what I would use for a non-JavaScript frontend. I'd never greenfield a project with TS if I could avoid it.
- emilecantin 6y ago
  > In a large app, the types can be their own special form of spaghetti. I have a relatively neutral opinion of Typescript, but oh boy does that quote ring true. TS can be a very nice safety net when refactoring (just fix all the type errors, and the app should mostly work as it did before), but you can also very well paint yourself in a corner with similar-but-slightly-different types all over the place that'd just work if it was in JS.
  - stank345 6y ago
    Yeah, agreed, but it's nice that it gives you the flexibility to be able to throw a `// @ts-ignore` in there and tell the compiler not to worry about it. I've definitely done that when consuming wonky libraries with messed up type definitions.
- stank345 6y ago
  I agree that TypeScript's type system is clunky compared to Elm, but being able to add a good amount of type safety with such a small learning curve and a large ecosystem at your disposal is a massive win. And Elm has its own problems (breaking changes, awkwardness of ports, lack of libraries).

brendanmc6 6y ago

I’ll die on that hill— back when I was interviewing for my next frontend position I told all my prospects I wasn’t interested in working for them if they aren’t using TypeScript or at least open to migrating. There really is no reason to use plain JS for anything!

schwartzworld 6y ago
> There really is no reason to use plain JS for anything unless you don't want to compile your code. I can spin up little projects that don't need a build step just fine.

schwartzworld 6y ago

Typescript programming invariably results in time spent figuring out how to properly type otherwise valid JavaScript code, ie debugging code that doesn't wind up in your app. In a large app, the types can be their own special form of spaghetti. The typing system is clunky and inelegant compared to Elm, which is what I would use for a non-JavaScript frontend. I'd never greenfield a project with TS if I could avoid it.

emilecantin 6y ago
> In a large app, the types can be their own special form of spaghetti. I have a relatively neutral opinion of Typescript, but oh boy does that quote ring true. TS can be a very nice safety net when refactoring (just fix all the type errors, and the app should mostly work as it did before), but you can also very well paint yourself in a corner with similar-but-slightly-different types all over the place that'd just work if it was in JS.
- stank345 6y ago
  Yeah, agreed, but it's nice that it gives you the flexibility to be able to throw a `// @ts-ignore` in there and tell the compiler not to worry about it. I've definitely done that when consuming wonky libraries with messed up type definitions.
stank345 6y ago
I agree that TypeScript's type system is clunky compared to Elm, but being able to add a good amount of type safety with such a small learning curve and a large ecosystem at your disposal is a massive win. And Elm has its own problems (breaking changes, awkwardness of ports, lack of libraries).