3 ms·
I wonder what the typescript community thinks of this. For a long time, one of the big things about typescript was that they didn't value soundness very highly
by ufo 12y ago
I wonder what the typescript community thinks of this. For a long time, one of the big things about typescript was that they didn't value soundness very highly and had a bit of a "we are a pragmatic language willing to cut corners" vibe. But now with Safe Typescript and Soundscript we see a bit of a return to traditional type systems that care a lot about soundness...
- dandare 12y agoI, for one, welcome our new sound overlords if it means better performance.
- chr1 12y agoThough gaining better performance through sound type system seems quite unlikely, in the best case there will be small overhead, but 15% they claim now is still large. from the article: > we measure a 15% runtime overhead for type safety
- discreteevent 12y agoYou would only turn on the runtime checks during testing.
- pekk 12y agoWhich goes to show how much type systems are really adjuncts to testing, rather than something qualitatively different from and better than testing.
- gecko 12y agoI think this is actually still on the pragmatic scale. Start with normal JavaScript. Gradually add typing. When you hit a point where it's sufficiently typed, and the situation calls for it, you can increase things further to Safe TypeScript. There doesn't honestly see to be a contradiction here, and I for one am psyched.