3 ms·
It's terrible. The amazing issues that TS can introduce to a codebase are terrifying, and TS has breaking releases on a regular cadence. As someone who has to d
by vorpalhex 6y ago
It's terrible. The amazing issues that TS can introduce to a codebase are terrifying, and TS has breaking releases on a regular cadence. As someone who has to do maintenance on a legacy TS platform it was miserable and literally involved flipping through TS versions to find one that worked.
My issues are not with strongly typed languages, they're specifically with TS.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- names_are_hard 6y agoWhat issues does TS introduce into a codebase that weren't already there? This sounds kinda like arguing that if we write fewer tests we'll have fewer bugs.
- moron4hire 6y agoGetting a configuration together that consumes all your dependencies and generates code without crapping a ton of meaningless warnings about duplicate type definitions in its own type mappings for runtime types is non-trivial and requires setting more than a few non-default compiler options, none of which are named anything that means anything. I still don't know how it's possible to safely, cleanly make a library that other projects can consume comfortably with just TypeScript.
- fogetti 6y agoIn our case: 1) slow and long transpilation times, 2) although not that common these days but missing typings used to cause some head scratch 3) overly permissive/overly restrictive type definitions 4) wrongly configured sourcemaps 5) unreadable type definitions/declarations... The list is long but these are off the top of my head