4 ms·

> Why are your types so complex? The article (and ensuing discussion) are about _library_ code, which necessarily has types that are orders of magnitude more c

> Why are your types so complex? The article (and ensuing discussion) are about _library_ code, which necessarily has types that are orders of magnitude more complex than application code (source: see some of the links in the article). The reason this isn't a problem in Java, C# etc is that the things these libraries do simply _aren't possible_ in the Java type system, so no one does them, and users end up with (usually) clunkier libraries.

bhawks 4y ago
React has its roots in StandardML and it's showing them here. Java, C# (and ma y other languages) barely scrape the surface of what you can do with a type system. Now there's definitely a question of when you start hitting diminishing returns but you can definitely do so much with and extract confidence from very strongly typed languages.
- GurnBlandston 4y ago
  > React has its roots in StandardML Really? This is fascinating, is there anywhere with more on this?
dvt 4y ago
> The article (and ensuing discussion) are about _library_ code, which necessarily has types that are orders of magnitude more complex than application code (source: see some of the links in the article). Are you somehow implying that C++ or Java don't have libraries? As a sidenote, React (and that entire ecosystem) is an architectural hellscape (see Vue for much more streamlined & cleaner code).
- jcparkyn 4y ago
  No, I'm just saying the libraries in those languages tend to be designed differently, to accommodate the more limited type systems (but I don't use C++, so I'm sure templates can do a lot of things I'm not aware of). I'm also not necessarily saying this is a good or bad thing overall, since it can so easily lead to extra complexity. FWIW, I'd choose C#/Rust/Kotlin/etc over TS 100% of the time for projects that don't need to run in a browser.

4 ms·

> Why are your types so complex? The article (and ensuing discussion) are about _library_ code, which necessarily has types that are orders of magnitude more c

by jcparkyn 4y ago

bhawks 4y ago
React has its roots in StandardML and it's showing them here. Java, C# (and ma y other languages) barely scrape the surface of what you can do with a type system. Now there's definitely a question of when you start hitting diminishing returns but you can definitely do so much with and extract confidence from very strongly typed languages.
- GurnBlandston 4y ago
  > React has its roots in StandardML Really? This is fascinating, is there anywhere with more on this?
dvt 4y ago
> The article (and ensuing discussion) are about _library_ code, which necessarily has types that are orders of magnitude more complex than application code (source: see some of the links in the article). Are you somehow implying that C++ or Java don't have libraries? As a sidenote, React (and that entire ecosystem) is an architectural hellscape (see Vue for much more streamlined & cleaner code).
- jcparkyn 4y ago
  No, I'm just saying the libraries in those languages tend to be designed differently, to accommodate the more limited type systems (but I don't use C++, so I'm sure templates can do a lot of things I'm not aware of). I'm also not necessarily saying this is a good or bad thing overall, since it can so easily lead to extra complexity. FWIW, I'd choose C#/Rust/Kotlin/etc over TS 100% of the time for projects that don't need to run in a browser.