3 ms·

> Luckily, we don't have to conduct this thought experiment... You're implying that with TypeScript you will get your codebase spaghetti free which is obviousl

> Luckily, we don't have to conduct this thought experiment... You're implying that with TypeScript you will get your codebase spaghetti free which is obviously not true. You can have a code base that hasn't a single type error and yet be full spaghetti. This also holds true when working with any framework, backend or frontend. > TypeScript and don't realize you can just... not use it? I don't but the places I've seen TypeScript code bases still suffered from much more critical issues than type issues. Like using wrong ideas, wrong patterns, no tests, spaghetti code, but hey you know what? We use TypeScript and is great, and believe it or not that is becoming the rule, not the exception.

Yiin 4y ago
TypeScript solves one single problem and is pretty good at it given the dynamic complexity of JS language. Trying to justify its usage as "fix-all band-aid" and then not liking the tool because it can't do that is not very productive. You can use wrong ideas, wrong patterns, no tests and have spaghetti code in literally every other language, that's not something for TypeScript to handle.
Hasu 4y ago
> You're implying that with TypeScript you will get your codebase spaghetti free I am not. I'm saying I don't have to imagine a world without TypeScript, I've lived it. > You can have a code base that hasn't a single type error and yet be full spaghetti. This also holds true when working with any framework, backend or frontend. Sure. I don't disagree. I'd still rather have the codebase without the type errors.