4 ms·
> That boundary is why I have a hard time taking TypeScript seriously. A type system that doesn't participate in code generation is what How is being able to c
by nawgz 4y ago
> That boundary is why I have a hard time taking TypeScript seriously. A type system that doesn't participate in code generation is what
How is being able to check code correctness at compile-time even close to "just linting and documentation basically"? This has to be a bad faith argument
> Worse there is one value that is both a user-definable TypeScript type and a JS value.
What does this even mean? I don't think you understand TypeScript.
- likeclockwork 4y agoIt's just fancy documentation. It doesn't contribute to behavior at all. Typescript can describe polymorphism, lamely, but it can't drive it.
- nawgz 4y ago> It doesn't contribute to behavior at all I agree that TypeScript, in and of itself, doesn't change the way the code executes. This is self-evident. But the idea that that makes it simply "fancy documentation" is hilarious. I have never seen documentation that can tell you at compile-time how your code will behave, it's fundamentally stupid to argue that static type checking is in any way comparable with documentation