With a very strict configuration, TypeScript is more type safe than C#. In C# a reference type can be null. Not the case in TypeScript. With any language you could read in unknown data. It's no different with TypeScript. Use some assertions.
It may not save you time coding (I'd argue it does - see intellisense), but it 💯 saves time in prevention of runtime bugs. If you're seeing red squigglies and don't need to fix them to run your app, you're not doing it right.
If you're explicitly typing everything, you're not doing it right. I'd argue that the TypeScript example with context you posted is more readable due to the ability to read exactly what the context is via the generic type parameter.
TypeScript unit tests are usually shorter and superior to JavaScript's due to there being no point to testing a bunch of silly stuff like does this module export a function or not.
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.
With a very strict configuration, TypeScript is more type safe than C#. In C# a reference type can be null. Not the case in TypeScript. With any language you could read in unknown data. It's no different with TypeScript. Use some assertions.
It may not save you time coding (I'd argue it does - see intellisense), but it 💯 saves time in prevention of runtime bugs. If you're seeing red squigglies and don't need to fix them to run your app, you're not doing it right.
If you're explicitly typing everything, you're not doing it right. I'd argue that the TypeScript example with context you posted is more readable due to the ability to read exactly what the context is via the generic type parameter.
TypeScript unit tests are usually shorter and superior to JavaScript's due to there being no point to testing a bunch of silly stuff like does this module export a function or not.