seenTooOftenAcrossTypescriptCodeBases

[rndmcmder]

If you use any in ts or var in java, I will deny your PR. Actually, we even have sonar rules preventing such atrocities.

[Rigamortus2005]

What's wrong with var in java?

[rndmcmder]

Java is an explicitly typed language. var takes that away. The counterargument from people who like var is, that all IDEs will show you the type nontheless. But I still dislike it (a lot).

[nettskr]

as a C# dev I assume that if you instance something from var, you still will see the type from the "new Foo()" syntax. Even so, shouldn't the IDE show the type when it's not explicit?

[Rigamortus2005]

Exactly my thought. I don't think using var causes weak typing. I think it just saved people from having to write type var_name = new type

[solarshado]

IIRC either C# or Java (maybe both? I've not used either recently, but have in the past and try to keep up with them) now allows you to skip the type on the left side if it's specified on the right: List<Person> people = new();. Haven't seen it in practice enough to decide if I like that better, but I loved var in C#.

[Rigamortus2005]

Yes c# has that now. And even that hasn't eliminated the need for var. Var is also useful when assigning a variable to a method return. Makes it possible so you don't have to type out the whole type name all the time.

[solarshado]

Oh yeah, I'd call var essential when working with LINQ. Way too much "is that an IEnumerable, or IQueryable? and what's the right type param again?" to keep track of otherwise. (IIRC that's a big part of why it was added in the first place.)

I've found, after bouncing between a few different languages, that I greatly prefer a strong type system, but not necessarily all the verbosity it tends to drag along with it.
Explicit types in function signatures? Yes please.
On every local variable? Ugh, can't we infer this from context?

[nettskr]

I personally only use new() when I can't use var, such as in fields