TypeScript is, by definition, longer than untyped JavaScript. As such, the development time is longer (assuming everything else is equal).
This is not true at all! That's because all JavaScript is valid, runnable TypeScript. Just run the TypeScript compiler on your code, and you have a linter that will catch some bugs and give you some hints in your IDE/text editor. This is already a great value, before you even change anything about the way you code.
In fact, this fundamentally means it can't be a waste of time because it doesn't require you to spend any time at all.
I genuinely don't find them more readable in most cases.
I would agree that the file without type annotations is more pleasant to read on its own (though I think at least some of the annotations could be inferred and so omitted). However, I am very very thankful for type annotations when I am opening up my 30th file today and don't have time to scour every line. While it might look like clutter while you're dissecting it, a) you have to do a whole lot less dissecting when you have types, and b) I don't spend time dissecting code all that often, I jump into something, get information, and move on. Types are a big part of that information.
And if clutter is a problem, this is an easily solved problem in your IDE -- just make it hide or make faint any type annotations that don't appear in JavaScript.
Typed JS is still... untyped.
The representation of values isn't relevant to types. C/C++ specify almost nothing about representation, and totally distinct types can be represented the same way.
Types are entirely about making static judgements from code. TypeScript lets you know things about your code before you run it. Sure, TypeScript isn't sound, but neither is Java. However, if you are frequently hitting problems because of unsoundness, that is a separate issue that would require a lot more details.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
There's a few fundamental things I disagree with:
This is not true at all! That's because all JavaScript is valid, runnable TypeScript. Just run the TypeScript compiler on your code, and you have a linter that will catch some bugs and give you some hints in your IDE/text editor. This is already a great value, before you even change anything about the way you code.
In fact, this fundamentally means it can't be a waste of time because it doesn't require you to spend any time at all.
I would agree that the file without type annotations is more pleasant to read on its own (though I think at least some of the annotations could be inferred and so omitted). However, I am very very thankful for type annotations when I am opening up my 30th file today and don't have time to scour every line. While it might look like clutter while you're dissecting it, a) you have to do a whole lot less dissecting when you have types, and b) I don't spend time dissecting code all that often, I jump into something, get information, and move on. Types are a big part of that information.
And if clutter is a problem, this is an easily solved problem in your IDE -- just make it hide or make faint any type annotations that don't appear in JavaScript.
The representation of values isn't relevant to types. C/C++ specify almost nothing about representation, and totally distinct types can be represented the same way.
Types are entirely about making static judgements from code. TypeScript lets you know things about your code before you run it. Sure, TypeScript isn't sound, but neither is Java. However, if you are frequently hitting problems because of unsoundness, that is a separate issue that would require a lot more details.