2 ms·
I could say all but the first about TypeScript :) Of course some of these things are subjective and it's perfectly valid to explore alternate approaches, but I
by brundolf 6y ago
I could say all but the first about TypeScript :)
Of course some of these things are subjective and it's perfectly valid to explore alternate approaches, but I personally don't see the value proposition yet for doing things this way with Go
- russdpale 6y agoYeh but if you already know go then this is perfect.
- dimitrios1 6y agoNot exactly. It's been said enough times, but compile time type checking has a big asterisk besides it with Typescript.
- brundolf 6y agoGoing to avoid getting into a religious argument, but it's my view that TypeScript's types are much stronger and more expressive than Go's. There are some holes, but the mere fact that you can distinguish nullable from non-nullable gives it the edge from my perspective.
- dimitrios1 6y agoI agree that TypeScript has a more expressive type system (not an advantage depending on how you view things, however). The big asterisk I am referring to is the fact that types are defined through a side channel rather than through the language itself. Your typing files may be different than someone elses. Everyone just so happens to use the same ones, so this problem doesn't come up too often in practice, but in applications where you need guaranteed static analysis, Typescript doesn't fit the bill.