3 ms·

Chiding a static type checker as a dynamic language based on the sophistication of its type system reads like a cynical joke to me. I didn't miss your point, b

Chiding a static type checker as a dynamic language based on the sophistication of its type system reads like a cynical joke to me. I didn't miss your point, but maybe I didn't explain mine clearly enough. You don't have to use complex types, even with 3rd party libraries, just figure out what goes into the function the same way you would if there were no type annotations.

throw_m239339 6y ago
> Chiding a static type checker as a dynamic language based on the sophistication of its type system reads like a cynical joke to me. And that's not what I said. Stop trying to pick up a fight with me or something by misrepresenting what I've said just for the sake of hearing yourself taking, it reflects bad on you, especially you doubling down. I only talked about the fact that there is a limit to the degree of complexity Typescript types until it itselfs turns into a javascript interpreter. your answers have absolutely nothing to do with that matter.