4 ms·

> Is Typescript worth it? > I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument… Typescript, as the name implies, adds types to your script. If you don’t s

> Is Typescript worth it? > I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument… Typescript, as the name implies, adds types to your script. If you don’t see the benefits of types then typescript may not be for you. > My issue is with the amount of extra work it places on developers… and doesn't deliver all that much value. If you think adding types doesn't add much value then typescript may not be for you. In my experience, types are defined once then provide a lifetime of value. > you are at the whim of TypeScript developers and how they decide to progress with the language. This is true of any library, programming language, operating system, hardware, etc. But adding types isn’t somewhere I’d worry about backward compatibility being broken. All the newer versions of typescript are backward compatible. If you have a library that requires a newer version of ts then upgrading ts won’t break anything dependent on earlier versions.

smt88 4y ago
> If you don’t see the benefits of types then typescript may not be for you. At this point in my 20+ year career working with mostly dynamic languages, my feeling is that if you don't see the benefits of types, then programming isn't for you.
- lorbrk6 4y ago
  [dead]
- Orangeair 4y ago
  I would narrow this slightly to "programming with other people". For instance, I love Python for small personal projects and interview questions and stuff like that, but I've found working with it professionally to be much more of a headache.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Eeexactly. Untyped Python and Javascript are amazing if you're doing things solo or maybe with one other person who has the same style. Now try that with a 20 person group poking the same codebase. The amount of weird bugs you run into because it's not clear what type(s) a function can take in or return is bonkers.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Types are indispensable even just for me. They reduce how much I have to jump over to the docs and how much runtime debugging I do. Most importantly, they help when I revisit something after even a few weeks and forget what certain parts of the code did.
- vlod 4y ago
  >my feeling is that if you don't see the benefits of types, then programming isn't for you. Maybe it isn't "types" that is the problem, but the way types are implemented in TS. I never had these problems in Java as I do in TS.
scubbo 4y ago
> If you think adding types doesn't add much value then typescript may not be for you. In my experience, types are defined once then provide a lifetime of value You have misunderstood the OP. The full paragraph is: >> I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing and if we could bless JavaScript with a built-in and robust typing system then I don't think many people would be against that. My issue is with the amount of extra work it places on developers, much of it the "dumb" kind of work which can eat up hours and doesn't deliver all that much value. Summarized: "I agree that static typing is a good thing. My issue is with the extra work (required to use TypeScript)...which doesn't deliver much value". That is - they are saying that types deliver value, but that the extra busywork required to use and maintain a TypeScript project (e.g. keeping dependencies up-to-date) does not - and, by implication, that the overhead of this maintenance work is enough to make them question whether the (acknowledged) value of types is worth it. (Note that I do not have a horse in the race as to whether the OP is correct in thinking that the overhead of TypeScript _as a language_ is greater than the value of the types. I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. But I am certain that you are responding to a point that was not actually the one being made)
- tgv 4y ago
  But that is either not a properly formulated argument, or it denies the benefits of strict(ish) typing. You reformulate it so that one weighs out the other. That would only be the case for projects where you do more work integrating libraries than actual programming. That's something much easier to discuss (IMO), but is it what OP asked?
  - raspberry1337 4y ago
    >You reformulate it so that one weighs out the other. That would only be the case for projects where you do more work integrating libraries than actual programming. No, the net gain with typing with static types as compared to without it, would be less than the increase of time spent with integrated libraries, rendering a total net loss.
- tmpfile 4y ago

smt88 4y ago

> If you don’t see the benefits of types then typescript may not be for you. At this point in my 20+ year career working with mostly dynamic languages, my feeling is that if you don't see the benefits of types, then programming isn't for you.

lorbrk6 4y ago
[dead]
Orangeair 4y ago
I would narrow this slightly to "programming with other people". For instance, I love Python for small personal projects and interview questions and stuff like that, but I've found working with it professionally to be much more of a headache.
theshrike79 4y ago
Eeexactly. Untyped Python and Javascript are amazing if you're doing things solo or maybe with one other person who has the same style. Now try that with a 20 person group poking the same codebase. The amount of weird bugs you run into because it's not clear what type(s) a function can take in or return is bonkers.
- smt88 4y ago
  Types are indispensable even just for me. They reduce how much I have to jump over to the docs and how much runtime debugging I do. Most importantly, they help when I revisit something after even a few weeks and forget what certain parts of the code did.
vlod 4y ago
>my feeling is that if you don't see the benefits of types, then programming isn't for you. Maybe it isn't "types" that is the problem, but the way types are implemented in TS. I never had these problems in Java as I do in TS.

scubbo 4y ago

> If you think adding types doesn't add much value then typescript may not be for you. In my experience, types are defined once then provide a lifetime of value You have misunderstood the OP. The full paragraph is: >> I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing and if we could bless JavaScript with a built-in and robust typing system then I don't think many people would be against that. My issue is with the amount of extra work it places on developers, much of it the "dumb" kind of work which can eat up hours and doesn't deliver all that much value. Summarized: "I agree that static typing is a good thing. My issue is with the extra work (required to use TypeScript)...which doesn't deliver much value". That is - they are saying that types deliver value, but that the extra busywork required to use and maintain a TypeScript project (e.g. keeping dependencies up-to-date) does not - and, by implication, that the overhead of this maintenance work is enough to make them question whether the (acknowledged) value of types is worth it. (Note that I do not have a horse in the race as to whether the OP is correct in thinking that the overhead of TypeScript _as a language_ is greater than the value of the types. I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. But I am certain that you are responding to a point that was not actually the one being made)

tgv 4y ago
But that is either not a properly formulated argument, or it denies the benefits of strict(ish) typing. You reformulate it so that one weighs out the other. That would only be the case for projects where you do more work integrating libraries than actual programming. That's something much easier to discuss (IMO), but is it what OP asked?
- raspberry1337 4y ago
  >You reformulate it so that one weighs out the other. That would only be the case for projects where you do more work integrating libraries than actual programming. No, the net gain with typing with static types as compared to without it, would be less than the increase of time spent with integrated libraries, rendering a total net loss.
tmpfile 4y ago