5 ms·

I agree. Also, back end tends to have fewer mega-trends. You usually have the option to stick to your old tools. There are still plenty of C/C++ back end jobs f

I agree. Also, back end tends to have fewer mega-trends. You usually have the option to stick to your old tools. There are still plenty of C/C++ back end jobs for example. The community keeps branching off. On the front end, the trends tend to be more extreme; people will not take you seriously unless you give up on whatever tools you use and go straight for React or VueJS... Then when TypeScript comes along, everyone has to switch to that... I couldn't believe it when people started combining JSX with TypeScript... It's essentially a double-transpiled language now... The trends keep adding more complexity and everyone is forced to switch to that regardless.

danielvaughn 4y ago
As someone who really appreciates strong typing, I will die on this hill - I hate Typescript. Introducing a transpiled typing system on top of a dynamically typed language is a recipe for all sorts of insane complexity, which is what I experience whenever I try to use TS. If you consider all the time and effort it took to introduce types for every NPM project out there, all the development of the language itself, the effort expended by individual devs and teams to learn the syntax... ...might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? It's not like the language can't adapt, and there are already some strong types when you're working with the graphics APIs.
- Existenceblinks 4y ago
  Reminds me of javascript the good part thin vs thick book meme. TS the good part is thin as well, though no one sets rules how many features they should use. Unsound type is bad enough, too many features make it worse. I wish they delete TS features, not trying to add more things to already broken underlying language (js)
- jongjong 4y ago
  I'm in a similar boat. I appreciate static typing and although I don't have any strong objections to TypeScript purely as a language, I can't get past the way it's transpiled into a dynamically typed language with source maps... Seems like a hack. It doesn't make sense; kind of like transpiling lower level assembly code into higher level C code. You could always argue that there is value in forcing arbitrary constraints onto developers but in the end, you need to ask the question "is it worth the complexity?"
- golergka 4y ago
  > ...might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? And how would it be different? I've been using TS since 2016, both for front and back-end, and I can count an amount of times the transpilation abstraction leaked on one hand (and most of these were when I just learning TS and worked on weirdly configured projects). Aside from these, I could just forget about the fact that it's transpiled to JS under the hood.
  - danielvaughn 4y ago
    Interesting, maybe it's just been my personal experience. I often work at the native DOM level, where the API is extremely forgiving and dynamic. The type system does not work well there, as I found several instances where the underlying type definition didn't match what the native API actually had available. My only recourse in those moments was to either use `any` or to write my own type definition (which I am not going to do).
- striking 4y ago
  > might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? TypeScript exists as a first step to adding types to JS. Some folks are currently trying to figure out a way to add type annotations that the JS engine will just ignore for now based on what we've learned from TS.
- wnolens 4y ago
  Did a personal web project and chose TypeScript to see what the rage was about. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to design types. At some points I couldn't figure it out, or I ran into some limitation of the language to express what I need. So my code has a bunch of exclamation points everywhere to assert that a null ain't coming. It feels dirty. Just too hard to use for me.
  - rektide 4y ago
    It's just so awesome that a thread on "Silent Majority" has the typical loud protests against JavaScript, against the web, against React, against TypeScript. The irony is loud to me. It's not even that there's only happy heads-down programmers off HN who support these mainstream techs. Even in the active userbase here, I'd wager there are tons of people who have an adequate or better experience with typescript or react, and may disagree with the dislikers. But we're not as invested in our liking, don't feel like it's worth engaging in, and none of the banter changes what is or where things are going. These are the de-jure tools that the majority definitely uses widely, which at least the first anti- comment, on front-end frameworks, acknowledged. Whatever the targets-of-the-day happen to be, they will crop up repeatedly, which further dissuades from trying to come back with a positive or even neutral opinion that might represent that silent majority's take. And the silent majority must constantly face Brandolini's Law; what it's doing may be working & have good reason, but it's hard to keep supporting & reasoning through with a pact invested in disbelieving. I liked the top post talking about disagreeing with the direction. That can be contributive, be value based. So often though the protests amount to gatekeeping "you've done too much." I evaluate where these comments would fall on Steve Yeggie's Software Political axis, from Notes from the Mystery Magic Bus[1], and almost universally the voices are conservative; they object rather than suggest, they refuse rather than support. I'd like to see more progressive protests, that can surface good, that acknowledge value & need but reflow or redirect the energy elsewhere, rather than being unhappy with what is. [1] https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150 https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150
    - wnolens 4y ago
      HN can be conversational, not always a well researched debate. Most of us are over-involved with these debates with coworkers at our day jobs, where we HAVE to spend the energy having productive disagreements. I appreciate the high quality HN posts, but sometimes just like at a water cooler a bunch of us just wanna say, "agh I'm so sick of object oriented" and it doesn't mean "all object oriented programming is of no use".
- jollybean 4y ago
  I consider JS an anti-pattern and won't allow more then 50 lines to be anywhere near me without TypeScript. The issues raised are innumerable. TS is really flexible and you can do some crazy gymnastics with it - I don't favour that. Just keep it very simple and don't go crazy with the generics. I've never had a problem at all, I've never had to dig into what was transpiled.
  - danielvaughn 4y ago
    Someone else in the thread mentioned how The Good Parts™ idea applies to TS just as much as JS, and I think that's what kinda frustrates me about it. If they'd just kept the damn thing simple, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
- overgard 4y ago
  To me, TypeScripts "complexity" is just from documenting the weird things JS libraries do. If it encourages less weirdness Im happy

danielvaughn 4y ago

As someone who really appreciates strong typing, I will die on this hill - I hate Typescript. Introducing a transpiled typing system on top of a dynamically typed language is a recipe for all sorts of insane complexity, which is what I experience whenever I try to use TS. If you consider all the time and effort it took to introduce types for every NPM project out there, all the development of the language itself, the effort expended by individual devs and teams to learn the syntax... ...might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? It's not like the language can't adapt, and there are already some strong types when you're working with the graphics APIs.

Existenceblinks 4y ago
Reminds me of javascript the good part thin vs thick book meme. TS the good part is thin as well, though no one sets rules how many features they should use. Unsound type is bad enough, too many features make it worse. I wish they delete TS features, not trying to add more things to already broken underlying language (js)
jongjong 4y ago
I'm in a similar boat. I appreciate static typing and although I don't have any strong objections to TypeScript purely as a language, I can't get past the way it's transpiled into a dynamically typed language with source maps... Seems like a hack. It doesn't make sense; kind of like transpiling lower level assembly code into higher level C code. You could always argue that there is value in forcing arbitrary constraints onto developers but in the end, you need to ask the question "is it worth the complexity?"
golergka 4y ago
> ...might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? And how would it be different? I've been using TS since 2016, both for front and back-end, and I can count an amount of times the transpilation abstraction leaked on one hand (and most of these were when I just learning TS and worked on weirdly configured projects). Aside from these, I could just forget about the fact that it's transpiled to JS under the hood.
- danielvaughn 4y ago
  Interesting, maybe it's just been my personal experience. I often work at the native DOM level, where the API is extremely forgiving and dynamic. The type system does not work well there, as I found several instances where the underlying type definition didn't match what the native API actually had available. My only recourse in those moments was to either use `any` or to write my own type definition (which I am not going to do).
striking 4y ago
> might it have been the same amount of effort just to introduce some strong types into Javascript itself? TypeScript exists as a first step to adding types to JS. Some folks are currently trying to figure out a way to add type annotations that the JS engine will just ignore for now based on what we've learned from TS.
wnolens 4y ago
Did a personal web project and chose TypeScript to see what the rage was about. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to design types. At some points I couldn't figure it out, or I ran into some limitation of the language to express what I need. So my code has a bunch of exclamation points everywhere to assert that a null ain't coming. It feels dirty. Just too hard to use for me.
- rektide 4y ago
  It's just so awesome that a thread on "Silent Majority" has the typical loud protests against JavaScript, against the web, against React, against TypeScript. The irony is loud to me. It's not even that there's only happy heads-down programmers off HN who support these mainstream techs. Even in the active userbase here, I'd wager there are tons of people who have an adequate or better experience with typescript or react, and may disagree with the dislikers. But we're not as invested in our liking, don't feel like it's worth engaging in, and none of the banter changes what is or where things are going. These are the de-jure tools that the majority definitely uses widely, which at least the first anti- comment, on front-end frameworks, acknowledged. Whatever the targets-of-the-day happen to be, they will crop up repeatedly, which further dissuades from trying to come back with a positive or even neutral opinion that might represent that silent majority's take. And the silent majority must constantly face Brandolini's Law; what it's doing may be working & have good reason, but it's hard to keep supporting & reasoning through with a pact invested in disbelieving. I liked the top post talking about disagreeing with the direction. That can be contributive, be value based. So often though the protests amount to gatekeeping "you've done too much." I evaluate where these comments would fall on Steve Yeggie's Software Political axis, from Notes from the Mystery Magic Bus[1], and almost universally the voices are conservative; they object rather than suggest, they refuse rather than support. I'd like to see more progressive protests, that can surface good, that acknowledge value & need but reflow or redirect the energy elsewhere, rather than being unhappy with what is. [1] https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150 https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150
  - wnolens 4y ago
    HN can be conversational, not always a well researched debate. Most of us are over-involved with these debates with coworkers at our day jobs, where we HAVE to spend the energy having productive disagreements. I appreciate the high quality HN posts, but sometimes just like at a water cooler a bunch of us just wanna say, "agh I'm so sick of object oriented" and it doesn't mean "all object oriented programming is of no use".
jollybean 4y ago
I consider JS an anti-pattern and won't allow more then 50 lines to be anywhere near me without TypeScript. The issues raised are innumerable. TS is really flexible and you can do some crazy gymnastics with it - I don't favour that. Just keep it very simple and don't go crazy with the generics. I've never had a problem at all, I've never had to dig into what was transpiled.
- danielvaughn 4y ago
  Someone else in the thread mentioned how The Good Parts™ idea applies to TS just as much as JS, and I think that's what kinda frustrates me about it. If they'd just kept the damn thing simple, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
overgard 4y ago
To me, TypeScripts "complexity" is just from documenting the weird things JS libraries do. If it encourages less weirdness Im happy