3 ms·

I actively look for non-TS frameworks. To me it's always been useless overhead. It really is a outcome of startup/enterprise teams that are so far away from how

by ivape 1y ago

I actively look for non-TS frameworks. To me it's always been useless overhead. It really is a outcome of startup/enterprise teams that are so far away from how money goes in and out of a business that they sit around and think TS is a good usage of time. It may hurt their feelings to know plenty of people run successful teams and entire businesses without type safety. It also makes the code look like shit. To each their own I guess.

IshKebab 1y ago
[flagged]
- ivape 1y ago
  I just think you are wrong. It mostly takes mindshare from rookie developers that are insecure and need to cover all their bases lest they be called bad at being a developer. Many grow out of this insecurity and see things for what they are. TS is OKAY, but it's not worth my time.
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    Well I'm objectively correct about it preventing bugs. This is one of the few things that has been fairly conclusively shown by studies. As for productivity, maybe it doesn't matter on tiny projects or short-lived one-man projects, but for anything else I don't see how you can argue it. You basically can't refactor reliably without static types, you can't navigate the codebase quickly without static types, and it makes it more difficult to understand other people's code without static types. Sure it might take slightly longer to write in the first place but that is easily outweighed by all those other benefits. Like, by an order of magnitude. It sounds like you are one of those "well I don't make mistakes" developers.
    - ivape 1y ago
      You basically can't refactor reliably without static types, you can't navigate the codebase quickly without static types, and it makes it more difficult to understand other people's code without static types. What a great interview test. I’d absolutely not hire someone that can’t do that. It also doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying entire codebases without types can’t be worked on. Huh? Those are basic things you can do in any language. This Typescript anointing has got to die. It’s lame, and most of you overuse it even when it’s appropriate.
      - IshKebab 1y ago
        I said reliably. Without static types in large codebases you are likely to miss things. E.g. you rename a variable but don't catch everywhere you should have updated it. Don't say "but tests".
        andersmurphy 1y ago
        If your data model is open and not closed you only need to change the location you are changing. This is how the internet works. Types that don't support this model actively hinder refactoring.
        brazukadev 1y ago
        Ifv you include the artificial restriction of not "use the correct tool/tests", then maybe you are right.
    - brazukadev 1y ago
      Care to share one of your projects with zero bugs?
brokegrammer 1y ago
I mostly agree with this. TS works great in large enterprises where developers don't trust each other. But if you're working on your own, or in a small team where you can easily agree with each other, TS just becomes unnecessary overhead. At least, that's my experience and I don't like it when people say that everyone must absolutely use TS when they don't know anything about your situation.

by ivape 1y ago

IshKebab 1y ago

[flagged]

ivape 1y ago
I just think you are wrong. It mostly takes mindshare from rookie developers that are insecure and need to cover all their bases lest they be called bad at being a developer. Many grow out of this insecurity and see things for what they are. TS is OKAY, but it's not worth my time.
- IshKebab 1y ago
  Well I'm objectively correct about it preventing bugs. This is one of the few things that has been fairly conclusively shown by studies. As for productivity, maybe it doesn't matter on tiny projects or short-lived one-man projects, but for anything else I don't see how you can argue it. You basically can't refactor reliably without static types, you can't navigate the codebase quickly without static types, and it makes it more difficult to understand other people's code without static types. Sure it might take slightly longer to write in the first place but that is easily outweighed by all those other benefits. Like, by an order of magnitude. It sounds like you are one of those "well I don't make mistakes" developers.
  - ivape 1y ago
    You basically can't refactor reliably without static types, you can't navigate the codebase quickly without static types, and it makes it more difficult to understand other people's code without static types. What a great interview test. I’d absolutely not hire someone that can’t do that. It also doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying entire codebases without types can’t be worked on. Huh? Those are basic things you can do in any language. This Typescript anointing has got to die. It’s lame, and most of you overuse it even when it’s appropriate.
    - IshKebab 1y ago
      I said reliably. Without static types in large codebases you are likely to miss things. E.g. you rename a variable but don't catch everywhere you should have updated it. Don't say "but tests".
      - andersmurphy 1y ago
        If your data model is open and not closed you only need to change the location you are changing. This is how the internet works. Types that don't support this model actively hinder refactoring.
      - brazukadev 1y ago
        Ifv you include the artificial restriction of not "use the correct tool/tests", then maybe you are right.
  - brazukadev 1y ago
    Care to share one of your projects with zero bugs?

brokegrammer 1y ago

I mostly agree with this. TS works great in large enterprises where developers don't trust each other. But if you're working on your own, or in a small team where you can easily agree with each other, TS just becomes unnecessary overhead. At least, that's my experience and I don't like it when people say that everyone must absolutely use TS when they don't know anything about your situation.