4 ms·

One of my most regretted decisions was evaluating Flow vs Typescript and going with Flow. Years later I had the opportunity to use Typescript and it was so nice

One of my most regretted decisions was evaluating Flow vs Typescript and going with Flow. Years later I had the opportunity to use Typescript and it was so nice comparatively. I've enjoyed it ever since. Of course, that was with years of development in its belt so maybe the experience wouldn't have been as nice if I went with it originally.

dimitropoulos 4y ago
Same. I spent the next few years doing major refactors from Flow to TypeScript (the largest that's public was for Insomnia: https://github.com/Kong/insomnia/discussions/3654 https://github.com/Kong/insomnia/discussions/3654).
latchkey 4y ago
I'm curious what criteria you used to pick Flow vs. Typescript.
- myth_drannon 4y ago
  Flow allowed gradual typing of the project and Typescript forced you to convert everything at once(at least the first versions of TS)
- dimitropoulos 4y ago
  for a lot of people it was some combination of: - Flow has more adoption (it did, for a while, in the OSS sphere) - Microsoft is evil (remember, this was before everyone was using VS Code and loving it. (Also, tautologically, TypeScript has been one of the biggest things that changed this public perception for the people I hang around)) - Facebook is awesome (oh, how times have changed...) - Flow has total type soundness as a goal (from the beginning, and through to today, TypeScript still lists this as an explicit non-goal) - You literally cannot use React and Flow together (it didn't support JSX for what felt like an eternity and Flow did from the beginning (I think?). - Flow had exact object types (TypeScript _sorta_ has this today, but most people don't know to turn it on because it isn't in the strict-mode family: exactOptionalPropertyTypes) - Flow had more features (and was faster) - DefinitelyTyped didn't exist yet, and it was easier to find types for Flow (but, let's be real, both had nearly nothing compared to today)
  - RyanCavanaugh 4y ago
    Total type soundness is not a goal of Flow. For example, array bounds are not considered. Flow considers this program to have no errors, but TypeScript (with the correct option enabled) will: let m = [1, 2, 3]; console.log(m[4].toFixed()); Also, DefinitelyTyped itself launched before Flow (2012 vs 2015), so the timeline on that point isn't right.
    - dimitropoulos 4y ago
      > Flow tries to be as sound and complete as possible. > https://flow.org/en/docs/lang/types-and-expressions/ https://flow.org/en/docs/lang/types-and-expressions/ That's what I was talking about re: Flow. That's a really insightful comment you make about the "turn of the phrase" between how the two marketed themselves. Super interesting stuff. also, apologies for messing up the timeline on the DT repo. My memory failed me there. Has it been that long?!?
    - RyanCavanaugh 4y ago
      TypeScript tries to be sound too. It wouldn't really make sense to write a type checker if that wasn't your goal. As the person who wrote the "100% soundness is a non-goal" line in the design goals document, that's there to serve the same role as "Flow sometimes has to make a tradeoff" in the Flow docs in terms of clarifying whether or not 100% soundness is a design goal. For both projects, the answer is "no". It's unfortunate that people have, over the years, decided that just being upfront about this fact means that TypeScript has a vastly different prioritization of soundness than Flow. We don't; both checkers use soundness as the default assumption when designing behavior.
  - throwaway56960 4y ago
    TypeScript could be used with React at least since 2015, that's when I first used that combo in production.
    - dimitropoulos 4y ago
      it's going to be really hard for me to find now after all these years but there's a video somewhere on YouTube of someone at a conference showing their first attempts at getting TypeScript to work with JSX involving lots of special comments that they would compile out with babel or something (it's been a few years, hopefully I remember that correctly). It was pretty extreme (and cool!).
- spoiler 4y ago
  I personally picked Flow because it was (and still is probably?) a much sounder and stricter type system than TypeScript. However, keeping up with the constant breaking changes (I helped maintained a few complex flow typedefs) led to me getting disenchanted and burnt out with Flow. Also, at one point a change was introduced where most (or all) internal errors would just cause a type to decay into `any`s, which frustrated me a lot. I don't hold it against Flow though; its only customer is the internal React team, and it's a 0.x software too. We've migrated our code to TypeScript later and it was a bit smoother sailing (although the typedefs for a few popular react ecosystem libraries were just... Abysmally wrong, it didn't matter at the end of the day; it was still easier).
  - altano 4y ago
    Flow is more sound in a lot of ways (e.g. exact object types, by default!) but it also has huge holes (e.g. it has no equivalent to --no-implicit-any, the single most important strict flag in TS). Neither is strictly more sound than the other.
- brundolf 4y ago
  We picked Flow because we were using React, and Flow was from Facebook, so we assumed the support/integration would be tighter than with TypeScript. It also had some appealing goals like stronger soundness, and a greater emphasis on type inference than TypeScript had at the time The main reason we switched was the tooling. The language server was slow in the best of times, would crash constantly, would memory-leak all over the place. Some of our devs stopped running it at all because it was so broken all the time. Then I tried out TypeScript and the speed and stability were breathtaking, and we never looked back.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  This was fairly early days (I want to say early 2016?), so its fuzzy now (and pre VS code going mainstream which has lowered TS friction pretty significantly) but I think a lot of it was a fairly basic pros/cons list with a lot of reading peoples opinions of using each technology. I think my ultimate reason was that Flow was comment-based and so was technically more "rip out"-able if I changed my mind later. EDIT: oh, also as someone else mentioned it was a React project, so I'm sure that played a part.
- a_humean 4y ago
  I remember doing a head to head comparison between Flow and Typescript back in 2015 or sometime around then, and flow came out top at the time. Main pull for flow for me was strict null checking and disjoint unions, which typescript lacked at the time. About a year later typescript got strict null checks and discriminated unions, and from that point on typescript just kept improving, the community type defintiions kept getting better, and flow felt like it was stagnating and had lots of performance issues (esp on windows machines). Flow actually still has a few notable features that typescript still lacks but are often asked for. For example, flow as `Exact` types that ensures that an object doesn't have excess properties throughout its lifetime - ergonomics are a bit awkward though.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Typescript in strict mode doesn't allow excess properties in an increasing number of situations. Typescript is still more structurally typed than nominally typed so there's no easy way to opt-in a specific type to stronger checks than average. The ergonomics are obviously different between Typescript and Flow. There are existing practical workarounds today to get more "nominally exact" types in Typescript such as using "brands" of various sorts (the most common is adding a private unique symbol to a type), though the ergonomics of using such branded types is also its own sort of awkward.
    - a_humean 4y ago
      Those excessive property checks are pretty limited to basically the construction of object literals, and it does it because its normally an error if you have a very explict type but your literal expression doesn't match it. Typescript really does nothing to enforce anything around excess properties except for that narrow case. Branding doesn't really enforce anything except what the user asserts is the case. Its not the same thing.
- mirekrusin 4y ago
  Flow still has some better sides: * first class opaque type support * exact object type * correct variance, sound liskov oop * no transpilation support (/*: */ and /*:: */) - so simple, so powerful; jsdoc ts doesn't compare, you can't import type star, when consuming libraries you have to increase maxNodeModuleJsDepth and other shenanigans; in flow you simply have access to all flow type language; why they don't want to do the same with ts is beyond me, it's like half a day of work to do it? * nominal types for classes, structural for the rest - as it should be * correct spread matching runtime behaviour Flow is under active development. They recently completed ~2 years of work on local type inference which is a big deal. But dev team is not interested in external contributions - quite opposite to how ts development is done. I did switch to ts as well but do miss above.
  - lewisl9029 4y ago
    Great list! Related to your point on supporting 0-transpilation workflows as a first class citizen, is the fact that Flow was explicitly just type annotations & checking, and aimed to introduce 0 runtime constructs. This is something Flow did from the beginning and TypeScript eventually established as a non-goal after already implementing several runtime constructs that they can no longer afford to remove for backwards compat [1]. Though interestingly enough, Flow themselves recently announced they're going to start introducing runtime constructs, which is an interesting plot twist [2]. [1] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals#non-goals https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Desi... [2] https://medium.com/flow-type/clarity-on-flows-direction-and-open-source-engagement-e721a4eb4d8b https://medium.com/flow-type/clarity-on-flows-direction-and-...
    - laurencerowe 4y ago
      In another plot twist TypeScript is supporting the Types as Comments TC39 proposal that would provide a true 0-transpilation workflow. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/a-proposal-for-type-syntax-in-javascript/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/a-proposal-for-typ...
brundolf 4y ago
I made the same mistake, though our transition to TypeScript was actually very smooth. We just set up Babel to handle both, then converted one file at a time. Flow files functionally became untyped JS files until they were converted. And the syntax/semantics were close enough that converting code was really easy
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TOGoS 4y ago
So it would seem that going with the flow turned out to mean not going with Flow; how confusing![1] I went with TypeScript early on because the compiler chain felt better integrated than the alternatives. No messing with chains of babel translators and source mappings; just use one tool. Maybe I liked the syntax better, also. Although as I recall, in the beginning, somebody my company interviewed had set up TypeScript using Babel, and it was all very over-my-head and impressive. He turned out to be too good to work for us, but some of his ideas really stuck with me. [1]This is why I dislike cutesy names for software projects. Just call it FacebookTypeAnnotatedJavaScriptFrobulator3003 (FTAJSF3003) or something.
beaugunderson 4y ago
we started with Flow and moved to TypeScript a few years ago; converted 100k lines of code primarily with sed via regular expression find/replace; even then TypeScript was better but 80% of the better part was the library of available typings--Flow's support for lodash types was awful in comparison and we used lodash and lodash/fp all over the place
devmunchies 4y ago
Interestingly, both flow and typescript have roots in OCaml/F# respectively. Flow was written in OCaml and the creator of Typescript was on the F# team at Microsoft.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > creator of Typescript was on the F# team at Microsoft. I actually think the bigger driver for TypeScript was Anders' history of working on C# and Delphi before that.
andsoitis 4y ago
> One of my most regretted decisions was evaluating Flow vs Typescript and going with Flow. What caused you to choose Flow over TypeScript?
bern4444 4y ago
Don't worry - the Twitter web team also made this mistake. But they made it at a time when TS was popular instead of earlier when the two were equally popular. Even well after TS was clearly the better option (as in 2022) the twitter web team opposed anything being done in Typescript like separate modules that would be a dependency of the web repo. At least you recognize the better direction now.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  With how much respect I have for TS now (its close to the gold standard in several categories for me), that would be a..... frustrating setup for me these days. TS just gets so much right, and is really a pleasure to work with IMO.
tomduncalf 4y ago
It’s hard to imagine if you weren’t in the React community at the time, but I feel like most people were pushing Flow at the time and choosing TS was quite controversial. I think it was the combination of Flow being from Facebook, and the “no build step/its just JS with annotations” thing which people made a big deal out of, but I never saw as a big differentiator. I had a hard time convincing a couple of places I worked to use TS rather than Flow for greenfield projects, but I’d tried them both out and concluded Flow just felt too unstable - the server would consume all my memory and crash and it just didn’t feel like a good dev experience. I managed to convince them by showing them how you could strip out Typescript types in much the same way as Flow if TS did turn out to be a dead end. I also recall having vigorous debates at React meetups where I was the only person in favour of TS haha. How times changed - you definitely can’t be blamed for choosing Flow at the time though as TS was the outsider. Also MS weren’t such a trusted brand for developers, people still associated them with proprietary stuff like .net/full fat Visual Studio and I think a few people had burned out in the MS ecosystem before and didn’t want to touch their stuff again!
- nikitaga 4y ago
  > I think it was the combination of Flow being from Facebook, and the “no build step/its just JS with annotations” thing which people made a big deal out of, but I never saw as a big differentiator. I put quite some time into evaluating Flow vs Typescript around 2016, and preferred Flow mostly because its type checking was more correct, and its bugs more straightforward. Typescript would happily compile all sorts of incorrect code even with its strictest configs, it was insane. I eventually found my happy place with Scala.js.
  - tomduncalf 4y ago
    This is true. I think TS arguably took a more pragmatic approach which allowed you to adapt existing codebases and coding styles more easily, at the expense (initially) of type safety. Obviously there have been many improvements since then
indeyets 4y ago
Flow was (and still is) awesome as a concept, but its main problem was that it felt as a side-project, which was supported for internal Facebook cases, but not really for open-source. TypeScript (back then) was a simpler language, but had a lot more manpower, which resulted in faster bug-fixes and more coverage of libraries. If Flowtype had more resources from Facebook it could still be the dominating language

dimitropoulos 4y ago

Same. I spent the next few years doing major refactors from Flow to TypeScript (the largest that's public was for Insomnia: https://github.com/Kong/insomnia/discussions/3654 https://github.com/Kong/insomnia/discussions/3654).

latchkey 4y ago

I'm curious what criteria you used to pick Flow vs. Typescript.

myth_drannon 4y ago
Flow allowed gradual typing of the project and Typescript forced you to convert everything at once(at least the first versions of TS)
dimitropoulos 4y ago
for a lot of people it was some combination of: - Flow has more adoption (it did, for a while, in the OSS sphere) - Microsoft is evil (remember, this was before everyone was using VS Code and loving it. (Also, tautologically, TypeScript has been one of the biggest things that changed this public perception for the people I hang around)) - Facebook is awesome (oh, how times have changed...) - Flow has total type soundness as a goal (from the beginning, and through to today, TypeScript still lists this as an explicit non-goal) - You literally cannot use React and Flow together (it didn't support JSX for what felt like an eternity and Flow did from the beginning (I think?). - Flow had exact object types (TypeScript _sorta_ has this today, but most people don't know to turn it on because it isn't in the strict-mode family: exactOptionalPropertyTypes) - Flow had more features (and was faster) - DefinitelyTyped didn't exist yet, and it was easier to find types for Flow (but, let's be real, both had nearly nothing compared to today)
- RyanCavanaugh 4y ago
  Total type soundness is not a goal of Flow. For example, array bounds are not considered. Flow considers this program to have no errors, but TypeScript (with the correct option enabled) will: let m = [1, 2, 3]; console.log(m[4].toFixed()); Also, DefinitelyTyped itself launched before Flow (2012 vs 2015), so the timeline on that point isn't right.
  - dimitropoulos 4y ago
    > Flow tries to be as sound and complete as possible. > https://flow.org/en/docs/lang/types-and-expressions/ https://flow.org/en/docs/lang/types-and-expressions/ That's what I was talking about re: Flow. That's a really insightful comment you make about the "turn of the phrase" between how the two marketed themselves. Super interesting stuff. also, apologies for messing up the timeline on the DT repo. My memory failed me there. Has it been that long?!?
  - RyanCavanaugh 4y ago
    TypeScript tries to be sound too. It wouldn't really make sense to write a type checker if that wasn't your goal. As the person who wrote the "100% soundness is a non-goal" line in the design goals document, that's there to serve the same role as "Flow sometimes has to make a tradeoff" in the Flow docs in terms of clarifying whether or not 100% soundness is a design goal. For both projects, the answer is "no". It's unfortunate that people have, over the years, decided that just being upfront about this fact means that TypeScript has a vastly different prioritization of soundness than Flow. We don't; both checkers use soundness as the default assumption when designing behavior.
- throwaway56960 4y ago
  TypeScript could be used with React at least since 2015, that's when I first used that combo in production.
  - dimitropoulos 4y ago
    it's going to be really hard for me to find now after all these years but there's a video somewhere on YouTube of someone at a conference showing their first attempts at getting TypeScript to work with JSX involving lots of special comments that they would compile out with babel or something (it's been a few years, hopefully I remember that correctly). It was pretty extreme (and cool!).
spoiler 4y ago
I personally picked Flow because it was (and still is probably?) a much sounder and stricter type system than TypeScript. However, keeping up with the constant breaking changes (I helped maintained a few complex flow typedefs) led to me getting disenchanted and burnt out with Flow. Also, at one point a change was introduced where most (or all) internal errors would just cause a type to decay into `any`s, which frustrated me a lot. I don't hold it against Flow though; its only customer is the internal React team, and it's a 0.x software too. We've migrated our code to TypeScript later and it was a bit smoother sailing (although the typedefs for a few popular react ecosystem libraries were just... Abysmally wrong, it didn't matter at the end of the day; it was still easier).
- altano 4y ago
  Flow is more sound in a lot of ways (e.g. exact object types, by default!) but it also has huge holes (e.g. it has no equivalent to --no-implicit-any, the single most important strict flag in TS). Neither is strictly more sound than the other.
brundolf 4y ago
We picked Flow because we were using React, and Flow was from Facebook, so we assumed the support/integration would be tighter than with TypeScript. It also had some appealing goals like stronger soundness, and a greater emphasis on type inference than TypeScript had at the time The main reason we switched was the tooling. The language server was slow in the best of times, would crash constantly, would memory-leak all over the place. Some of our devs stopped running it at all because it was so broken all the time. Then I tried out TypeScript and the speed and stability were breathtaking, and we never looked back.
JamesSwift 4y ago
This was fairly early days (I want to say early 2016?), so its fuzzy now (and pre VS code going mainstream which has lowered TS friction pretty significantly) but I think a lot of it was a fairly basic pros/cons list with a lot of reading peoples opinions of using each technology. I think my ultimate reason was that Flow was comment-based and so was technically more "rip out"-able if I changed my mind later. EDIT: oh, also as someone else mentioned it was a React project, so I'm sure that played a part.
a_humean 4y ago
I remember doing a head to head comparison between Flow and Typescript back in 2015 or sometime around then, and flow came out top at the time. Main pull for flow for me was strict null checking and disjoint unions, which typescript lacked at the time. About a year later typescript got strict null checks and discriminated unions, and from that point on typescript just kept improving, the community type defintiions kept getting better, and flow felt like it was stagnating and had lots of performance issues (esp on windows machines). Flow actually still has a few notable features that typescript still lacks but are often asked for. For example, flow as `Exact` types that ensures that an object doesn't have excess properties throughout its lifetime - ergonomics are a bit awkward though.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Typescript in strict mode doesn't allow excess properties in an increasing number of situations. Typescript is still more structurally typed than nominally typed so there's no easy way to opt-in a specific type to stronger checks than average. The ergonomics are obviously different between Typescript and Flow. There are existing practical workarounds today to get more "nominally exact" types in Typescript such as using "brands" of various sorts (the most common is adding a private unique symbol to a type), though the ergonomics of using such branded types is also its own sort of awkward.
  - a_humean 4y ago
    Those excessive property checks are pretty limited to basically the construction of object literals, and it does it because its normally an error if you have a very explict type but your literal expression doesn't match it. Typescript really does nothing to enforce anything around excess properties except for that narrow case. Branding doesn't really enforce anything except what the user asserts is the case. Its not the same thing.
mirekrusin 4y ago
Flow still has some better sides: * first class opaque type support * exact object type * correct variance, sound liskov oop * no transpilation support (/*: */ and /*:: */) - so simple, so powerful; jsdoc ts doesn't compare, you can't import type star, when consuming libraries you have to increase maxNodeModuleJsDepth and other shenanigans; in flow you simply have access to all flow type language; why they don't want to do the same with ts is beyond me, it's like half a day of work to do it? * nominal types for classes, structural for the rest - as it should be * correct spread matching runtime behaviour Flow is under active development. They recently completed ~2 years of work on local type inference which is a big deal. But dev team is not interested in external contributions - quite opposite to how ts development is done. I did switch to ts as well but do miss above.
- lewisl9029 4y ago
  Great list! Related to your point on supporting 0-transpilation workflows as a first class citizen, is the fact that Flow was explicitly just type annotations & checking, and aimed to introduce 0 runtime constructs. This is something Flow did from the beginning and TypeScript eventually established as a non-goal after already implementing several runtime constructs that they can no longer afford to remove for backwards compat [1]. Though interestingly enough, Flow themselves recently announced they're going to start introducing runtime constructs, which is an interesting plot twist [2]. [1] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals#non-goals https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Desi... [2] https://medium.com/flow-type/clarity-on-flows-direction-and-open-source-engagement-e721a4eb4d8b https://medium.com/flow-type/clarity-on-flows-direction-and-...
  - laurencerowe 4y ago
    In another plot twist TypeScript is supporting the Types as Comments TC39 proposal that would provide a true 0-transpilation workflow. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/a-proposal-for-type-syntax-in-javascript/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/a-proposal-for-typ...

brundolf 4y ago

I made the same mistake, though our transition to TypeScript was actually very smooth. We just set up Babel to handle both, then converted one file at a time. Flow files functionally became untyped JS files until they were converted. And the syntax/semantics were close enough that converting code was really easy

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

TOGoS 4y ago

So it would seem that going with the flow turned out to mean not going with Flow; how confusing![1] I went with TypeScript early on because the compiler chain felt better integrated than the alternatives. No messing with chains of babel translators and source mappings; just use one tool. Maybe I liked the syntax better, also. Although as I recall, in the beginning, somebody my company interviewed had set up TypeScript using Babel, and it was all very over-my-head and impressive. He turned out to be too good to work for us, but some of his ideas really stuck with me. [1]This is why I dislike cutesy names for software projects. Just call it FacebookTypeAnnotatedJavaScriptFrobulator3003 (FTAJSF3003) or something.

beaugunderson 4y ago

we started with Flow and moved to TypeScript a few years ago; converted 100k lines of code primarily with sed via regular expression find/replace; even then TypeScript was better but 80% of the better part was the library of available typings--Flow's support for lodash types was awful in comparison and we used lodash and lodash/fp all over the place

devmunchies 4y ago

Interestingly, both flow and typescript have roots in OCaml/F# respectively. Flow was written in OCaml and the creator of Typescript was on the F# team at Microsoft.

andsoitis 4y ago
> creator of Typescript was on the F# team at Microsoft. I actually think the bigger driver for TypeScript was Anders' history of working on C# and Delphi before that.

andsoitis 4y ago

> One of my most regretted decisions was evaluating Flow vs Typescript and going with Flow. What caused you to choose Flow over TypeScript?

bern4444 4y ago

Don't worry - the Twitter web team also made this mistake. But they made it at a time when TS was popular instead of earlier when the two were equally popular. Even well after TS was clearly the better option (as in 2022) the twitter web team opposed anything being done in Typescript like separate modules that would be a dependency of the web repo. At least you recognize the better direction now.

JamesSwift 4y ago
With how much respect I have for TS now (its close to the gold standard in several categories for me), that would be a..... frustrating setup for me these days. TS just gets so much right, and is really a pleasure to work with IMO.

tomduncalf 4y ago

It’s hard to imagine if you weren’t in the React community at the time, but I feel like most people were pushing Flow at the time and choosing TS was quite controversial. I think it was the combination of Flow being from Facebook, and the “no build step/its just JS with annotations” thing which people made a big deal out of, but I never saw as a big differentiator. I had a hard time convincing a couple of places I worked to use TS rather than Flow for greenfield projects, but I’d tried them both out and concluded Flow just felt too unstable - the server would consume all my memory and crash and it just didn’t feel like a good dev experience. I managed to convince them by showing them how you could strip out Typescript types in much the same way as Flow if TS did turn out to be a dead end. I also recall having vigorous debates at React meetups where I was the only person in favour of TS haha. How times changed - you definitely can’t be blamed for choosing Flow at the time though as TS was the outsider. Also MS weren’t such a trusted brand for developers, people still associated them with proprietary stuff like .net/full fat Visual Studio and I think a few people had burned out in the MS ecosystem before and didn’t want to touch their stuff again!

nikitaga 4y ago
> I think it was the combination of Flow being from Facebook, and the “no build step/its just JS with annotations” thing which people made a big deal out of, but I never saw as a big differentiator. I put quite some time into evaluating Flow vs Typescript around 2016, and preferred Flow mostly because its type checking was more correct, and its bugs more straightforward. Typescript would happily compile all sorts of incorrect code even with its strictest configs, it was insane. I eventually found my happy place with Scala.js.
- tomduncalf 4y ago
  This is true. I think TS arguably took a more pragmatic approach which allowed you to adapt existing codebases and coding styles more easily, at the expense (initially) of type safety. Obviously there have been many improvements since then

indeyets 4y ago

Flow was (and still is) awesome as a concept, but its main problem was that it felt as a side-project, which was supported for internal Facebook cases, but not really for open-source. TypeScript (back then) was a simpler language, but had a lot more manpower, which resulted in faster bug-fixes and more coverage of libraries. If Flowtype had more resources from Facebook it could still be the dominating language