>If types are really that big a deal that you have a hard time writing an application without a compiler checking your types, you should reevaluate what you're doing.
Implying that everyone has exceptional short term memory, and reading old code has virtually no cost.
I never said that TypeScript wasn't helpful. The picture painted by some people that frontend applications without compile-time type-checking are ready to fall apart at the seams and have knobs and springs go flying everywhere, like something from a Looney Tunes cartoon, is patently absurd.
Given what I said, Even for fairly simple examples, it would still be more bug prone, simply due to humans not having perfect cognition. At scale that can add up.
Also keep in mind that this both enables, and follows a trajectory of increasingly complex frontend applications, previously a lot of interactive stuff was done server side.
Patently absurd, if you take it as a strawman, sure. You ended up using that to paint the complete opposite picture, which was essentially that Typescript doesn't actually add any real value, only "perceived" value. Which is true, if all you value is the execution environment. Keep in mind that Typescript was not the first attempt at trying to "tame" Javascript. One example that comes to mind is Coffeescript.
The natural reducto ad absurdum is thus, well why aren't we just writing in ASM, it all boils down to that anyway, right? People were doing fine then too... Could it also be said that accusing people of needing "crutches" is also snobbery?
> The picture painted by some people that frontend applications without compile-time type-checking are ready to fall apart at the seams and have knobs and springs go flying everywhere, like something from a Looney Tunes cartoon, is patently absurd.
This is a great analogy for my experience with JS projects. Most bugs are found at runtime, which is incredibly frustrating and time-consuming.
Implying that everyone has exceptional short term memory, and reading old code has virtually no cost.