3 ms·

No favorite but here’s some things I like about a few: - TypeScript: the type system is incredibly powerful and expressive. You can guarantee wild things at co

No favorite but here’s some things I like about a few: - TypeScript: the type system is incredibly powerful and expressive. You can guarantee wild things at compile time without a single runtime test. - Clojure: very simple and elegant way to learn/introduce FP. - Rust: I’m learning it now, and while I definitely understand why it’s considered difficult to learn… it’s certainly much less intimidating (in my experience) than other systems programming languages, in particular because of the borrow checker.

LEDThereBeLight 5y ago
I'm surprised to see Typescript as a favorite language. I use it every day, and I kind of see it as a necessary evil, but not something I particularly enjoy. I guess I'm saying this to ask, am I doing something wrong? I feel like there's essentially no useful type inference, writing custom types is a nightmare because everything has its own special keyword rather than a simple core set of composable types, error messages feel intentionally vague, and having to write constructors and custom "isType" checks for every type you define is a massive chore. In Haskell I could write: data Tree a = Leaf | Branch (Tree a) a (Tree a) tree = Branch (Branch Leaf 1 Leaf) 3 (Branch Leaf 2 Leaf) whereas in typescript it would be something like: type Leaf = { type: 'leaf' } type Branch<a> = { type: 'branch' v: a l: Tree<a> r: Tree<a> } type Tree<a> = Leaf | Branch<a> const isLeaf = (l: any): l is Leaf => l?.type === 'leaf' const isBranch = <a,>(b: any): b is Branch<a> => b?.type === 'branch' const isTree = <a,>(t: any): t is Tree<a> => isLeaf(t) || isBranch<a>(t) const Leaf = (): Leaf => ({ type: 'leaf' }) const Branch = <a,>(v: a, l: Tree<a> = Leaf(), r: Tree<a> = Leaf()): Branch<a> => ({ type: 'branch', v, l, r }) const tree = Branch(2, Branch(1), Branch(3)) How does this not feel like a major pain in the ass? Is there a simpler way to get typescript to do all the boilerplate for you?
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  Don’t focus so hard on guaranteed type safety, and write more code. For real engineering I think it’s a wonderful compromise between formality and practicality.

LEDThereBeLight 5y ago

I'm surprised to see Typescript as a favorite language. I use it every day, and I kind of see it as a necessary evil, but not something I particularly enjoy. I guess I'm saying this to ask, am I doing something wrong? I feel like there's essentially no useful type inference, writing custom types is a nightmare because everything has its own special keyword rather than a simple core set of composable types, error messages feel intentionally vague, and having to write constructors and custom "isType" checks for every type you define is a massive chore. In Haskell I could write: data Tree a = Leaf | Branch (Tree a) a (Tree a) tree = Branch (Branch Leaf 1 Leaf) 3 (Branch Leaf 2 Leaf) whereas in typescript it would be something like: type Leaf = { type: 'leaf' } type Branch<a> = { type: 'branch' v: a l: Tree<a> r: Tree<a> } type Tree<a> = Leaf | Branch<a> const isLeaf = (l: any): l is Leaf => l?.type === 'leaf' const isBranch = <a,>(b: any): b is Branch<a> => b?.type === 'branch' const isTree = <a,>(t: any): t is Tree<a> => isLeaf(t) || isBranch<a>(t) const Leaf = (): Leaf => ({ type: 'leaf' }) const Branch = <a,>(v: a, l: Tree<a> = Leaf(), r: Tree<a> = Leaf()): Branch<a> => ({ type: 'branch', v, l, r }) const tree = Branch(2, Branch(1), Branch(3)) How does this not feel like a major pain in the ass? Is there a simpler way to get typescript to do all the boilerplate for you?

idontwantthis 5y ago
Don’t focus so hard on guaranteed type safety, and write more code. For real engineering I think it’s a wonderful compromise between formality and practicality.