3 ms·

I don't think laziness or a lack of desire to learn java script is the driving force for these projects. Rather, its simply for people who prefer a facade of st

I don't think laziness or a lack of desire to learn java script is the driving force for these projects. Rather, its simply for people who prefer a facade of strong types over their java script.

jtwebman 12y ago
What do strong types get you? Being I write a bunch of C# at work and almost all JavaScript at home I find types very limiting, so I still don't get why?
- munificent 12y ago
  > all JavaScript at home Every language works pretty well for solo personal projects. It's when you scale up to dozens of team members and millions of lines of code that some things don't work as well.
- justathrow2k 12y ago
  I'm sorry, are you hoping I provide an all encompassing answer that convinces you of its usefulness? I can't provide that. Like I said, its simply a matter of personal preference. You find types limiting, others find them helpful.
- aquark 12y ago
  I find Typescript catches all sorts of typos that get missed in pure JS because I don't have 100% code coverage tests. Sure a JSLinter might catch some of those, but it won't find mis-spelled method names. Other benefits include not having to remember the 'interesting' rules around 'this' in pure JS (though that occassionally slips through in libraries that use it). Having saner (to my eyes) syntax for modules and encapsulation. And having intellisense support in Visual Studio reduces the effort of writing the code.
  - jtwebman 12y ago
    Both great points!
- fsloth 12y ago
  When I implement a type zoo that models the problem I am solving I do not need to spend as much time reasoning about the semantics (with a good IDE) and the compiler warns me if I've done something odd and won't run the program if I've done something wrong. With a strong typesystem I can first figure out what I need to do, then write it (like a fews of hundreds of lines), compile it and be fairly confident that the program runs almost correctly. Static typesystem does not help with the bugs that have to do with bugs in algorithms (wrong iteration order etc.) but it let's me concentrate on those parts mostly. Static typing also functions as a self documentation - I see the intended program flow from the type signatures and do not need other means necessarily to figure out what the program flow is. To me types are like lego bricks and dynamic languages are like ducktape - both have their uses.
  - jtwebman 12y ago
    I just find them hand holding and limiting.
    - fsloth 12y ago
      Well said! I love it when I can get the computer to hold my hand and limit my actions. Personally I feel the limits of my cognition and enjoy when the computer assists in proofing the correctness of my programs. That way I can be more sure I don't do anything that breaks the program logic and that developers that come after me remain within the boundaries of correctness when modifying my code. Types don't help in design but they help in forming a coherent whole. I've figured out there are two constraint systems I can use to effectively write correct programs. One of them is a typesystem and the second is set theory. Granted, the most mainstream statically typed languages come with so much syntactical baggage and lack type hinting (C++, Java, C#) that they can effectively hide the elegance of types as a problem modeling tool. Types can be used just as a non-value adding anal-retentive bureaucratic baggage but that's not how they should be used. I'm professionally mostly a C++ programmer but did not really 'get it' until I familiarized myself with functional languages (Ocaml, F#) which helped me understand how to actually leverage a typesystem to help me write correct code instead of 'just using typedeclarations because the compiler is too stupid to figure out what I want to do'. To be precise, the languages themselves did not really teach me that much but the learning materials I used with those language did. When I need to do something small data processing in a jiffy I usually pick Python. For small programs few-liners in dynamic languages are usually a win.

I don't think laziness or a lack of desire to learn java script is the driving force for these projects. Rather, its simply for people who prefer a facade of strong types over their java script.

jtwebman 12y ago

What do strong types get you? Being I write a bunch of C# at work and almost all JavaScript at home I find types very limiting, so I still don't get why?

munificent 12y ago
> all JavaScript at home Every language works pretty well for solo personal projects. It's when you scale up to dozens of team members and millions of lines of code that some things don't work as well.
justathrow2k 12y ago
I'm sorry, are you hoping I provide an all encompassing answer that convinces you of its usefulness? I can't provide that. Like I said, its simply a matter of personal preference. You find types limiting, others find them helpful.
aquark 12y ago
I find Typescript catches all sorts of typos that get missed in pure JS because I don't have 100% code coverage tests. Sure a JSLinter might catch some of those, but it won't find mis-spelled method names. Other benefits include not having to remember the 'interesting' rules around 'this' in pure JS (though that occassionally slips through in libraries that use it). Having saner (to my eyes) syntax for modules and encapsulation. And having intellisense support in Visual Studio reduces the effort of writing the code.
- jtwebman 12y ago
  Both great points!
fsloth 12y ago
When I implement a type zoo that models the problem I am solving I do not need to spend as much time reasoning about the semantics (with a good IDE) and the compiler warns me if I've done something odd and won't run the program if I've done something wrong. With a strong typesystem I can first figure out what I need to do, then write it (like a fews of hundreds of lines), compile it and be fairly confident that the program runs almost correctly. Static typesystem does not help with the bugs that have to do with bugs in algorithms (wrong iteration order etc.) but it let's me concentrate on those parts mostly. Static typing also functions as a self documentation - I see the intended program flow from the type signatures and do not need other means necessarily to figure out what the program flow is. To me types are like lego bricks and dynamic languages are like ducktape - both have their uses.
- jtwebman 12y ago
  I just find them hand holding and limiting.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    Well said! I love it when I can get the computer to hold my hand and limit my actions. Personally I feel the limits of my cognition and enjoy when the computer assists in proofing the correctness of my programs. That way I can be more sure I don't do anything that breaks the program logic and that developers that come after me remain within the boundaries of correctness when modifying my code. Types don't help in design but they help in forming a coherent whole. I've figured out there are two constraint systems I can use to effectively write correct programs. One of them is a typesystem and the second is set theory. Granted, the most mainstream statically typed languages come with so much syntactical baggage and lack type hinting (C++, Java, C#) that they can effectively hide the elegance of types as a problem modeling tool. Types can be used just as a non-value adding anal-retentive bureaucratic baggage but that's not how they should be used. I'm professionally mostly a C++ programmer but did not really 'get it' until I familiarized myself with functional languages (Ocaml, F#) which helped me understand how to actually leverage a typesystem to help me write correct code instead of 'just using typedeclarations because the compiler is too stupid to figure out what I want to do'. To be precise, the languages themselves did not really teach me that much but the learning materials I used with those language did. When I need to do something small data processing in a jiffy I usually pick Python. For small programs few-liners in dynamic languages are usually a win.