That fuctions could have been written by a child.
What about if you instead of providing such a ridiculous examples, shows us an example of how would you type a component generated from a render props that takes a function props that expects a ref as a paremeter?? Would typescript still be so fancy?

TypeScript advocates always seem to be up in arms when somebody suggests that they don't need types.

I'd like to turn the tables. I'm flabbergasted (well, not really - more like 🤦‍♂️) how people claiming to value static typing are championing a tool that eschews soundness.

No Soundness, No Business

Now Java dates back to 1995 and C# to 2000 but TypeScript didn't appear until 2012 - so what is TypesScript's excuse? Gradual typing of JavaScript code. So that is worth a tradeoff that essentially undermines the perceived "safety" of static typing?

Bottom-line - anybody who is actually serious about static typing wouldn't be using TypeScript for this exact reason but something more like ReScript (and simply accept the additional pain of JavaScript interop).

TypeScript is simply a super linter that requires syntax extensions to normal JavaScript (making it not parsable as JavaScript unless you stick to JS Doc TS) to do its job. TypeScript is a Subset of JavaScript - it's only a superset in terms of syntax but not in terms of capability.

TypeScript is popular:

• because of IDE (VS Code) integration, most notably Code Completion. It's humorous how for years Java users have been denigrated by their peers for their reliance on IDEs to work around the warts and boilerplate of Java - and TypeScript/VS Code are gaining popularity and praise for those same features - TypeScript could only succeed because VS Code (and the like) made the additional ceremony bearable.

• because it gives developers coming from Java/C# a false sense of familiarity - which is actually dangerous because they keep operating on a mental model that is something other than JavaScript, setting themselves up for disappointment.

And finally the term "strong typing" is almost meaningless:

Erlang is also strongly typed. A weakly typed language would do implicit type conversions between terms. If Erlang were to be weakly typed we could possibly do the operation 6 = 5 + "1". while in practice, an exception for bad arguments will be thrown:

i.e. Erlang is dynamically typed but considers itself strongly typed because it does not coerce types.

When people use the term "strong typing" they usually mean "static typing"; when they use "static typing" they feel "safe" even though that safety actually requires "soundness".

Yes, types improve code.

It's usually helpful to write down the type of new functions first;

But the primary benefit comes from thinking and designing in types, i.e. type-driven development. That can be practiced in a dynamically typed language - simply using a type-aware tool doesn't automatically yield those benefits.

Life After Business Objects

verry good dude

Any one knows this font?

i.imgur.com/mUUZcnU.png

I started to use TypeScript when I learned Angular 4. At that time, I thought that I would be using TypeScript only for Angular Development, but as time progressed, the TypeScript found its way through the ReactJS and normal JavaScript Development as well.

I think the reason behind this is the strictness that do not allow the developer to get too flexible with JavaScript and allow the developer to write more readable and cleaner code.

Typescript is great in my opinion. I'm glad to be able to use it at my current client now. I do think the article focuses more on how you write typescript than explain why you should use it in your JS projects. Great article none the less! :)

I appreciate your taking the time to write this article - it is a brief and clear introduction to TS.

And, I find the fact that you call a function that adds two numbers "minus" confusing to the point of disturbing. Would you consider fixing the example?

Also, after reading the article, I still don't know why "I should type my next JS project".

What are some common patterns where using typed JS is a benefit?

I get that other devs like it, but why?

Thank you!

But finally all .ts files will convert into .js files so they can work in browsers.
Then what's the exact advantage of Typescript.

I have coded something in typescript,
Let a:string = 'some string';

And I tried to change that value using input[type='number'] tag.
Then 'a' value is changing even the given value is 'number'.

Can you please give me more brief about typescript?

Thanks

I really like JSDoc! I've used TypeScript for a few libraries but for projects that don't need a build step, it's so simple to just edit your source from the browser devtools source panel.

You can still check your project "compiles" by running the typescript compiler over our JS source by adding tsc -p jsconfig.json to your package.json like this. Here's my jsconfig.json -- the commented out rules fail now but it's on my backlog to clean up the code.

TypeScript is going to gain more popularity this year.

After reading the whole thread my conclusion -
There are 2 types of people -
First - who likes TS / have used earlier and know how helpful TS is in Coding.
Second - Who don’t want to write extra pieces of code, So to justify their laziness they start giving excuses like Overcomplicated / Bloat / Better Alternatives / Example of closed projects.....

Nothing is perfect at the start, JavaScript also got multiple updates.
That's why we are developers, We evolve with time. If some new project comes that offers better than TS we will switch to it.
It's the same like - I will use Notepad because MS Word has spelling and grammar correction which is overcomplicated.