-18

Refusing TypeScript is a signal that you don't care about code quality (vitonsky.net)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

If you aren’t using [favourite programming language] you are a terrible dev who should feel bad!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Rust. The language is called Rust. And it should be used for everything!

[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nah, i refuse web dev because i care about code quality.

[-] skulbuny 5 points 10 months ago

Refusing PureScript and Haskell is a signal that you don't care about code quality.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

uhm, you can get pretty great code quality in JavaScript. And you can also get pretty bad code quality in TypeScript (or any typed language). Its about your attitude toward it.

I'm okay with that because I don't even know what Turbo 8 is.

are you though? You seem upset that people aren't using TypeScript.

[-] survive 2 points 10 months ago

Quite the opposite really.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This is satire right? Right?

[+] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The trivial problem here being knowing what kinda of parameter some random function somewhere in your code expects... And your code not randomly breaking in production when someone changes that function after you already used it, unless you wrote unit tests that literally test every single line of code.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

My sense is that this argument primarily holds for teams without thorough code reviews. For individuals or teams with good reviews, TypeScript adds little except for complex code or massive rewrites. I'm not saying it adds little in absolute terms, but that it adds little once you account for the overhead of using it.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

A quick check everytime when you build / package the code is surely more effective than a human code review.

Also the difficulty of coding in a language where there isn't any static type analysis still remains. How does it even work, do you have to do a manual text search everytime you change some existing function or class?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Nonsense. The compiler can handle type-checking far more quickly and acurately than any code reviewer. When I review code, I want to look at code structure, algorithms, data structures, interface design, contracts, logic, and style.

I don't want to go through your code line by line cross-referencing every function call to make sure you put the arguments in the right order and checking every member access for typos. That's a waste of my time, and by extension, the company's money.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023

-18 points (41.2% liked)

Programming

16304 readers

370 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]