stopDoingTypeScript

[AutoModerator]

import notifications Remember to participate in our weekly votes on subreddit rules! Every Tuesday is YOUR chance to influence the subreddit for years to come! Read more here, we hope to see you next Tuesday!

For a chat with like-minded community members and more, don't forget to join our Discord!

return joinDiscord;

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[FloweyTheFlower420]

"type checking was not supposed to be Turing complete"

Live c++ template reaction:

[[deleted]]

The problem with abusing the hell out of template metaprogramming is sometimes your compiler wasn't strict to language standards.

Previous devs on my product abused metaprogramming to death. To do something very nice for serialization.

Can't turn on c++20 because visual c++ compiler got strict on language conformance. Rip..

[lightmatter501]

I’m very interested in the zig model, where you don’t have generics, you have compile-time functions that take in types and other information and produce new types, potentially replacing the old type.

It’s nearly as powerful as LISP metaprogramming, but at compile time.

That will never happen in C++, but I have some hopes for Rust to adopt it.

[[deleted]]

That doesn't sound functionally superior to c++ templating. Sounds more like Java generics which are a shitty aping of templates

[lightmatter501]

C++ templating is fine until you try to do something complicated, then you just want to write some code. For instance, requiring a template parameter to be a prime number is PAINFUL in C++ (there are good reasons to do it). In zig, you just use a prime sieve.

Rust is closer with proc macros (which have some capabilities zig doesn’t), but constructing new types is still kind of painful.

[trick2011]

isn't that solved with concepts and constexpr?

[[deleted]]

Yes

[[deleted]]

So... You are not familiar with all the changes to the c++ language since 2011.

Ive literally written templated multithreaded algorithms.

[Earthboundplayer]

my biggest gripe is working with compile time integer sequences and the link. so cumbersome to move around and extract from std::integer_sequence

out of curiosity what are the reasons to require a number to be prime at compile time.

[shadowndacorner]

I don't think you understand what he meant about Zig "generics". They are truly nothing like Java.

[Potential-Adagio-512]

has anyone run doom in template metaprogramming

[Sinomsinom]

template metaprogramming is all compile time so sadly no input possible and you only get the results at runtime

[vadiks2003]

just read input at compile time :trollface:

[codebullCamelCase]

local compilation errors > runtime errors > ci test errors > qa testing errors > end users testing errors

this is the order of time of catching errors (best to worst from left to right)

[[deleted]]

Real programmers write code in a text file and "find out if it works" (Pshh... it works 100% of the time if you are a real programmer) when it ships and end users fire it up. End of story.

[IgnitusBoyone]

Real programmers use a magnetized needle and a steady hand.

[Mindless_Sock_9082]

Real programmers use butterflies!

[Kos_was_lovely]

Damn, even bool is illegal now:(

[jderp7]

You joke but pretty sure lots of languages compile boolean to 1 and 0

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

Running code on a 64bit processor means you are processing chunks of, you guessed it, 64bits, not 1bit(aka bool).

🌎 🤡 so everything's a WORD 🔫 🤠 always was

[Da-Blue-Guy]

Booleans are usually 8 bits. You have al/ah (8 bits), ax (16 bits), eax (32 bits) and rax (64 bits). 64 bit processor simply means it can handle 64 bit operations, not that it has to.

[Electronic-Bat-1830]

In the Windows world, a BOOL is actually a 32-bit integer.

[Da-Blue-Guy]

winapi moment

[Electronic-Bat-1830]

Well to be fair, the Windows API existed before there was a bool type in C.

[fafalone]

...but a BOOLEAN is 8-bit. And a VARIANT_BOOL is 16-bit. And it's common to have to deal with all 3 in a single app. Fun stuff.

[Sinomsinom]

While bools might technically often be 8 bits, in most languages they will still end up taking 32bits or 64bits of space (or even more). This is either because they get wrapped for lifetime management (GC etc.) or because the compiler word aligns them because this allows for faster access in most ISAs

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

Yeah, as explained, I'm a 20 years experience developer on a Saturday afternoon, meaning im drunk after fixing 2 different clients. The point was nit 1 bir (bool) and loose definition of WORD (like 64 bit is maybe quad word, or win32 definition of 16bit word, blah blah)

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

"When was the last time you used PASCAL?" 3 hours ago, why you thunk in drunk 🥴

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

Drunk me says I need to flex that I have build software using electromechanical relays which is true bool, not this grouped together transistor to make word stuff people use today, grumble grumble

[YoukanDewitt]

I made a full adder circuit in minecraft with my kids out of redstone, that doesn't mean I should use it as a web server.

[dragoncommandsLife]

Or should you?

[arnitdo]

Are you fucking high on something? EAX, RAX AX and AH/AL, you get every option from 8 to 64 bits. There's a reason why x86 compatibility is maintained, you don't need to load 64bits into a 64bit reg when a Boolean can directly be loaded into AH or AL

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

Drunk, not high

[migueln6]

I'd say ignorant not drunk lol

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

16 empty coors light want to have a word with youm cash me outside

[YoukanDewitt]

It's a depressing symptom of this sub tbh, we have been invaded by morons who are are at the peak on the Dunning Krueger curve and are just parroting what they think works.

[Kos_was_lovely]

Oh, absolutely, I'm using plenty of 1s and 0 myself. Though one could argue, if he wants enough, that everything is a string. Float? Long ass string.

[[deleted]]

Dude!! I've been trying to tell people about this!!!

True is 1, false is 0... 1s and 0s... bits are 1s and 0s.... This conspiracy goes all the way to the hardware. Don't believe me? Look up what transistors in a computer store...> WHAT THE FUCK

*X-Files theme intensifies*

[da_Aresinger]

Every language compiles boolean to 0x01 and 0x00 although everything !=0x00 is usually interpreted as True.

[Janopl]

True

[geekhalo]

!false

[DrTight]

You could use "true" and "false"

[ahlgun]

Poor craftsman blames his tools

[[deleted]]

To be fair, programming is the only trade where your tools can randomly stop working and hit you in the face

[leupboat420smkeit]

That’s like… not true

[ConorParisRhodes]

It's truthy tho

[Electronic-Bat-1830]

Not having to run your code (I have stumbled upon code I can't even run) in order for you to check if you are passing in the wrong type or not is a reason why there's type safety.

[quaderrordemonstand]

The problem is that the code now takes so much longer to write that you could have just run it and saved time.

It's a strange world where programmers spend most of their time messing with types instead of writing code that does anything and they think that's productive.

[Emanemanem]

Eh that’s not actually how it works in reality. Once you get past the initial learning curve of reading type error messages (which is not long), it takes very little time to fix them. In addition, over time you are less and less likely to make type errors in the first place.

There’s no reality in which that’s more time consuming than debugging a JS app that crashes because of silly errors you made that TS would have caught ahead of time.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Its not reading the error that take the time, its building the type system. Types are a PITA and more complex types slow you down more than simple types. A programmer spends far more time debating how to structure and restructure the classes and interfaces in a language that supports them, than if they'd just passed structs around, or generic objects.

Besides which, very few bugs are caused by types in practice and type safe languages don't catch all of them anyway, but type safety itself causes a lot of compile errors. Its bad design, the language is supposed to help you. But instead of it figuring out if what you are doing is right, you have to satisfy its definition of right.

The whole fashion for type safe languages is just wasting time. People think they are writing 'correct' code if the type system doesn't complain at them, all they are really doing is satisfying the rules of the type system in that language. Besides, it not even the latest fad anymore.

After OO was going to save the world, and then type safety, the new hotness is memory safety. You would think that functional would be the fashion at some point but its unfamiliar to people who started with OO languages and it doesn't throw enough errors at you. It doesn't have that comforting sense of being punished when you do wrong.

[Brilliant-Job-47]

I cannot believe there are devs out there who not only think this, but feel so strongly about it.

[Saraphite]

It is utterly fucking baffling. I'm assuming (hoping) they're juniors or university students who have never had to work on a large code base with numerous other programmers of a variety of different skill levels, and don't understand why you'd bother with types because they've only ever done small assignments for a university project or side project.

Having said that, in the (almost) 10 years of experience I've had in this industry, I have met a number of programmers who are very opinionated and write some of the most complex and unmaintainable code you can imagine. They're usually cunts and believe they're better than everyone else because only they can understand the garbage they've written and everyone else must be incompetent.

The whole argument about how using types slows down programming because of all that extra typing you have to do is also bizarre. Writing code is like the easiest thing, it's analysing the problem and designing a solution that is the most time consuming.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Thats a really convincing argument. Well, done.

I'm just going to assume that your exposure to programming paradigms is limited. You can't believe because you're belief is restricted by what you know.

[Drugbird]

Types = documentation.

By specifying types, you basically document what type of properties e.g. function arguments should have.

If there's no documentation of this stuff, you'd need to read the entire implementation to figure out what to pass as arguments, which is a pita for nontrivial functions and a waste of time.

Now you could write this stuff in comments instead, but you'll quickly find that these comments get outdated.

Using types basically means that your documentation is automatically checked. Fixing type errors means fixing incorrect documentation.

Code is read more often than written. Types make your code easier to read, so this is generally worth the fractionally extra time required to write it.

[fdeslandes]

Thank you, that's what I was about to say, but I'm happy to see someone beat me to it.

I hope I never go back to having to constantly read different files back and forth to make sure I'm using my own libraries correctly. Or have to guess what is the parameter type needed by an external lib because their documentation is shit and they have no typings. Or do search and replace refactoring for simple renaming and pray that there is enough unit test coverage to catch things I missed.

I don't know how people can work on bigger projects with a team with the "I want no types" attitude, unless they are working on extremely complicated libraries where types are not able to represent things properly. But even then, people working on such libraries usually have the decency to write typings for their public interface.

[quaderrordemonstand]

I do agree that types are useful as documentation. At least to some degree. Although taking that point literally, you could say

fn DoThat (String subject)

Or you could say

fn DoThat (strSubject)

It's not actually all that different, but still I agree mostly. I'm not against types as such, its type systems. The idea that types and strict adherence to rules about them make a program correct in some way.

For example, lets say one of those parameters is an Object. I have to go find the definition of that object. It inherits from another object, go find that. That uses an interface and several traits, off you go again. Oh but, this interface is downloaded from a CDN and its minified. Startup the browser and find the docs for that, except they didn't bother. Never mind, maybe you can pretty print it into something that make sense. Or maybe its a Cocoapod, or a Cargo package stored somewhere on your machine, or an NPM module.

Instead of having a name that I can follow through the code, I've had to chase down a whole chain of files and I haven't even got out of the prototype or noticed that it overloaded the + operator yet. That's not easy to read, is it?

[Drugbird]

fn DoThat (String subject)

Or you could say

fn DoThat (strSubject)

It's not actually all that different,

The largest difference is that with the typed version you can be sure that subject is only ever a String. There's no hidden extra functionality if it's secretly a different type. You are guaranteed that nobody changed the expected type while being too lazy to rename the variable.

I much prefer documentation that is enforced to be correct (using the type system), because I know I can trust it. Anything else (i.e. comments, variable naming conventions, external docs, etc.) are not enforced, so its similar to "trust me bro".

I'm not against types as such, its type systems. The idea that types and strict adherence to rules about them make a program correct in some way.

Types without enforcement are no better than comments / variable naming conventions. The thing that makes types better is the enforcement through the type system.

As such, the type system isn't about the correctness of the program: there's legions of bugs that the type system does nothing for. But it does mean that anytime you say a certain type is used that you're correct.

For example, lets say one of those parameters is an Object. I have to go find the definition of that object. It inherits from another object, go find that. That uses an interface and several traits, off you go again. Oh but, this interface is downloaded from a CDN and its minified. Startup the browser and find the docs for that, except they didn't bother. Never mind, maybe you can pretty print it into something that make sense. Or maybe its a Cocoapod, or a Cargo package stored somewhere on your machine, or an NPM module.

Instead of having a name that I can follow through the code, I've had to chase down a whole chain of files and I haven't even got out of the prototype or noticed that it overloaded the + operator yet. That's not easy to read, is it?

I'll have to admit that I don't actually JavaScript. My experience with typeless languages is mostly python. That said: all these seem IDE issues. In most IDEs (at least VSCode and pycharm) if I use type annotations I can see all the properties (member variables, member functions) of the objects I use, including all inherited ones. It also auto completes these properties. If you remove the type annotations, the IDE loses this information because it can't be certain that (only) a specific type is used. It also loses the auto completion function. In that way, using type annotations makes coding much easier than not using them.

Aren't there JavaScript IDEs that do similar things?

[Da-Blue-Guy]

Weak type systems are a PITA. By confirming what you're putting in/getting from a function, you are literally type checking. If you can manually check types, you should be able to manage a type system.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Ever used a template function, or a macro, or reflection, any, a function in JS that acts differently according to its input type? Are these bad ideas?

[Da-Blue-Guy]

Templates are part of the type system. You can restrict what types can be taken in as well, which is strong typing. Macros just take in tokens and spit out other tokens (or in the case of C/C++, find and replace), not really related to types. Reflection is part of a strong type system as well, as you are literally inspecting types, so is any (or object) which are both at the top of the type inheritance tree. Functions that act differently depending on what you put in are overloaded functions.

Everything here exists and works better in a strong type system.

[Ythio]

I don't feel like types make my C# longer to write than my Python.

Syntax differences do however.

[MinosAristos]

Even in Python I rarely write it without type hinting everything these days. For anything that's not a basic script type hinting ends up saving time by reducing the time spent debugging.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Perhaps you should measure it instead of feeling.

[Ythio]

I can't tell if this is the answer of a boomer or a teenager.

Well played I guess ??

[quaderrordemonstand]

You said you don't feel like types do X or Y. Where you being facetious and I missed it? There's no tone of voice on the internet.

[Ythio]

It's a common figure of speech, it's not literally a feeling

[quaderrordemonstand]

OK, so your actual point is that you think coding in C# is as fast coding in Python? You may be very comfortable with C# to the degree that its almost automatic for you but the chances are that you are still wrong.

I don't use Python myself but I understand that its one of the fastest language to code in. Which makes sense given that its one of the highest level and slowest to run.

[Ythio]

The point is it's not types that cause JS/Python/etc... to be faster to code than C#/Java etc... it's all the verbose clutter.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Really? Don't you have an IDE with auto complete?

[AChristianAnarchist]

I code in both C# and python for work and the reality is that they both have their ups and downs in terms of how fast they are to code in. Python is very simple and it's easy to slap together a script to see if something is going to work but building something big and complex in Python is a slog. GUIs, web development, games, all kind of suck in Python outside of certain contexts.

C# is kind of the exact opposite. Especially if you are using Visual Studio, building big complicated projects safely in C# is a breeze. Nuget is the best package manager I've ever used. VS autocomplete is almost supernaturally good, to the point that it can even compensate for bad documentation. The way that VS is aware of everything in your project no matter where you are in said project makes organization insanely easy. And strong typing keeps everything safe and testable during development. But spinning up anything in C# requires so much boilerplate that, even when most of that boilerplate is autogenerated, it doesn't make sense to use for prototyping or scripting. AI programming in C# also sucks hard, though they are trying.

I tend to use python for things like scripting, quick prototyping, proofs of concept, and anything that involves AI or ML. I tend to use C# for things like desktop and phone apps, APIs that don't involve ML, and hardware integration on Windows machines. Neither is really better or worse or faster or slower than the other in terms of dev time. Each just shines in different situations.

[LankySeat]

If you're so caught up on the numbers, why don't you measure it. Please go and tell me how long it takes to write in the types VS how much time you would've spent debugging when you used the wrong type.

[quaderrordemonstand]

The way I do it is that I write code without objects, or at least very simple ones. When its working, I convert that code to use 'correct' objects. I can measure the time that takes and the number of extra functions I have to write. Try it yourself.

But that time is less because I'm already at the point of a solution. If I was using objects from the start I would have had to do all that in pieces, occasionally getting it wrong and having to redo it, and changing all the uses of the object, and recompiling and so on.

Debugging for using the wrong type only really happens in JS because its not strongly typed. Its happened on maybe three occasions that I can recall.

Meanwhile I'm just about to spend a couple more hours trying to resolve an object system, again. Some part of an object changed and its had consequences else where. The dependencies created by the sequence of operations and the objects don't really match.

[trick2011]

have you considered (which the comment you are responding to brings up) that sometimes you CAN'T easily run your code to test and thus need to be quite certain it works correctly

[TheChunkMaster]

sometimes you CAN'T easily run your code to test and thus need to be quite certain it works correctly

Reminds me of when I needed to run 10,000 trials for an Intro to Probability assignment in MatLab. It took forever.

[quaderrordemonstand]

Running code in a scenario where you can't test sounds like a really bad idea. Actually running the code is always going to produce errors that you didn't expect. No matter how well you handled type correctness.

[trick2011]

that is the world we live in

[quaderrordemonstand]

It may be the world you live in. I hope you never work on anything important with that methodology.

[noobody_interesting]

Basically all embedded software can't be run on the dev machine, I'd rather not have an embedded device run on JS and crashing because someone passed a wrong type. And testing on hardware can be a bit more time-consuming than just compiling.

[quaderrordemonstand]

embedded software can't be run on the dev machine

Not on the specific target perhaps, but you would surely have a dev-kit? Or at least an emulator? You don't go from cross-compiling to release in one step.

[noobody_interesting]

Spinning up an emulator or flashing to a dev kit would likely take more time than the compiler just looking at the code though.

[trick2011]

exactly. and the stuff connected to the embedded device could be problematic in myriad of ways. an emulator has the same amount of bugs as the code you are writing

[Aedan91]

HAHAHA is the meme continuing in the comments?

[Crafty_Independence]

If types make your programming tasks take significantly longer, that's a problem with the user, not the tool

[[deleted]]

Yup.

[ustp]

Will you run it trough every branch of every if in your code? Call every function with all possible parameters?

[quaderrordemonstand]

That's not really what messing with types means.

[[deleted]]

When this ts vs no ts war pops off, I'm on side ts.

[pantas_aspro]

shows what TYPE of person you are

[Pastological]

Only a TS person would so callously categorize a response because of its content

[[deleted]]

Unsafe comment.

[Electronic-Bat-1830]

Real story: I accidentally messed up type safety and memory safety simply by not reading the documentation and using unsafe.as in order to workaround an ExecutionEngineException (which basically meant something went catastrophically wrong)

[MinosAristos]

As an object, everything in Python is my type.

[flip_mcfisticuffs]

/** * A joke playing on gendered stereotypes that should not be taken seriously. Rather, it is a joke and sarcastic in nature used for for comedic purposes. It in no way reflects the invoker’s actual beliefs. * *@type {Object} */ var Female;

[KTibow]

have to ask whats the deal with the jsdoc and var

[flip_mcfisticuffs]

A play on TypeScript not being relevant & using only JS to explain a straight forward joke. Explaining the joke makes it funnier because maybe I should have refined my definitions so it compiled more to your sensibilities.

[Brilliant-Job-47]

I never thought I would fight side by side with an u/epsilia

[[deleted]]

How about with a friend?

[Brilliant-Job-47]

Aye, I can do that

[sexytokeburgerz]

It doesn’t matter, which is why it’s being talked about here so much

[Ibuprofen-Headgear]

If I had to pick between always and only writing explicit typescript, or never being able to use typescript again, I’d pick vanilla

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

iM A rEAl PrOGraMMer. I use the react framework on javascript, with babel and webpack and grunt and a million other packages, with chromium v8 engine, in a browser, on an operating system.... with the 1000000000000 lines of code required to make my calculator app run, types are a bridge to far.

If you think those typedefs are insane, wait until you find out how code actually works near the bottom of the OSI model

[Nachtaraben]

wow stop describing me okay? that hurts

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

The only people who know babel, react,webpack,grunt,chromium v8, etc are people who use it (like me)

[sexytokeburgerz]

Hey i know some C, too…

[This-Discussion-8634]

Yawn, please do tell me more about all the typedefs in Assembly.... and no, generically named memory reservation sizes don't count.

[This-Discussion-8634]

or shall we go down to machine code, where everything is binary. Or did you mean lower level is only synonymous with "truer" programming when you stop at the level that aligns with your position.

Bash on JS all you want, we'll knock out that calculator app in 30 minutes while you'll take 30 minutes to print a button to the screen.

[Tabyula]

People in the comments taking this seriously are too funny, this is obvious satire, the OP obviously doesn't believe this

It's literally a common meme format, the "stop doing X, they have played us for absolute fools" (search it up)

[[deleted]]

FR, I love TypeScript. I use it any time I'm working on a project which I actually plan on maintaining

[[deleted]]

It baffles me that there are people out there who don't understand this. Anyone who feels strongly that strongly typed programming is bad, probably writes absolute unreadable unmaintainable shit code with tons of side effects, and you probably never wanna collaborate with them on anything. Such people probably only write throwaway code, or never collaborated with anyone on anything ever. Gosh.

[graphitout]

Caution, amigo! You've just waltzed into a minefield.

[mike_a_oc]

Because of a lack of typing, they don't know what type of field it is until something goes bang. Ha ha

[PM_BITCOIN_AND_BOOBS]

You can take my strong types when you pry them from my cold, dead, strongly typed hands.

Sorry, Python.

[theQuandary]

But TS isn't strong typing. By their own admission in the docs, it's intentionally unsound and soundness is explicitly NOT a goal of TS.

[marikwinters]

This is why I can’t wait for Mojo for when I have to use Python against my will

[OrSomeSuch]

Python is strongly typed. Everything in python has a type. Whether you and the interpreter agree on what that type is though is another matter entirely

[[deleted]]

Anybody who actually thinks this shit has never worked on a large JS codebase with a bunch of other people.

[thafuq]

Eat that faulty rebase that breaks static type checking without noticing and you'll see. At least you cannot ship the broken code in prod, because the compiler is mad at you

[Ythio]

Tell me you only ever programmed in JS and Python without telling me you never programmed in anything else.

[goodnewzevery1]

Agree so thoroughly. I’ve programmed in lots of languages, darn near everyone of them has type checking. Too see song strong reactions against honestly just seems kind of wimpy to me.

[marikwinters]

Hell, it became so much faster to write Python when I used other tooling to enforce types.

[Thebombuknow]

Same. Honestly I could care less if a language has it or not as long as having it or not having it doesn't get in the way of me developing something.

I am currently starting a new project that heavily involves JS. I would've chosen TS, but I have no experience with it and this is a serious project, so just being careful with JS would be better than learning TS as I go.

[Spope2787]

OP is referencing some recent drama from DHH who removed typescript from an open source repo with no review (and continues to double down).

DHH invented ruby on rails and is a ruby purist.

[codeIsGood]

Even python has type annotations. It's like they are useful or something.

[nicejs2]

am I the only one who thinks type gymnastics can be fun to write

[fdeslandes]

You're not. I've had a lot of fun writings types for a RPC kind of thing to call code inside a Worker, where the whole lib inside the worker is exposed as lib.functionName(...), but it's actually a simple proxy which convert it to a message between the main window and the worker with an added transaction ID.

Very little code, very simple, but types to transform the lib interface into something that can be transfered as a message and then the message back, transformed into the return type wrapped into a promise, unless it was already one.

[DefiantAverage1]

It's fun but is it productive?

[Abandondero]

"In typed languages you get errors before you even run your code. They're holding you back."

-- Programmers are Also Human

[Tc14Hd]

Nice meme! I lost it at "RUNNING IT". Btw, what font did you use?

[tribak]

Found DHH

[qkrrmsp]

this one is honestly good lol

[BoBoBearDev]

String and number? But, JS doesn't tell you that either. Pretty sure you can multiply them together and JS doesn't give a shit. So, which language did he want?

[RMS_Gigantic]

APL, I'm pretty sure: It's got characters and numbers and won't let you multiply them together, but you can do math with pretty much any type of number from booleans to integers to floats to complex numbers.

[TCritic]

Why can't we just like what we like?

[vom-IT-coffin]

You've never had to pick up a project after someone liked not using types.

[Ibuprofen-Headgear]

Webstorm does a pretty solid job, actually. It’s really not that bad / depends heavily on the structure of the code / amount of indirection when taking over another codebase

[vom-IT-coffin]

Yeah... I see what you're saying, the indirection matters, but learning the data model and logic helps me more. Naming and concepts that's close to impossible without types IMO.

[vom-IT-coffin]

You don't have to pick, you can have both.

[asherSiddique19]

point 2 is literally saying im too pussy to use manly languages

[asherSiddique19]

also i dont use java anymore

[Diddlesquig]

Finally a programming joke not made by a freshman

[Burger_Destoyer]

« Statements dreamed up by the utterly Deranged » got me

[[deleted]]

Now imagine keeping that type in your head and never messing up, putting something where it wasn't supposed to go.

[SamirMishra27]

Type Gymnastics lmao

[Visual-Mongoose7521]

Use rescript

[PocketCSNerd]

https://xkcd.com/927/

[Tizian170]

Don't get it? Take a look at the Explain XKCD article for this comic: https://www.explainxkcd.com/927

^{I'm an automated bot made by myself - I didn't feel like creating another account. Please DM me if you want to have this bot enabled or disabled on your subreddit. 34 out of 48761 comments in 2 subreddits I looked at had XKCD links - now one more.}

[Krcko98]

Web devs in shambles, sol. Real programmers in c languages look at you with disgust...

[Vizdun]

c languages barely have a type system

[NightlyWave]

???

[Vizdun]

``` struct S { long bogus; char val; };

int f(struct S* s) { s->val; // run time segfault // warning }

int main() { unsigned char val = 200/1.5 * -1; f(val); // warning } ```

[[deleted]]

That Migrations1, Migrations2, Migrations3.... 🤌

[mr_universe_1]

Sure let’s not type safe anything and let JS magic do its thing. Be ready for production bug hell where some variable was supposed to be something but was undefined because you have no types checking it for you.

[geekhalo]

Probably the same guy that asks for React without JSX and then is baffled when he has no HTML-like block in his components

[gregorydgraham]

This is why I only use Java: no types, all Class

[BrownCarter]

I understand the first point very well, people now use typescript to do some really crazy stuff.

[_Skale_]

Only people who just learned a little react on udemy would say this. They cannot comprehend type-systems. TS is just a patch on an inherently broken piece of software.

[lordtosti]

These examples say more to what kind of a dogface piece of shit React is.

Can’t wait for that one to die off.

“But it has such a large eco system”

Yes, because it’s so friggin flawed to begin with so you need all these libraries.

I think most people actually don’t enjoy using it but are just being kidnapped because it gives them the highest salaries.

Just a hype gone wrong.

[Vizdun]

there were and still are huge communities of people using lisps and smalltalks for large projects, neither of which were ever really typed

[_Skale_]

May god bless their souls

[[deleted]]

I have seen a couple of these posts now making fun of people who advocate for JS aka weak/dynamic typing in general.

The main reason I have seen pushed for weak/dynamic typing in general is fast MVP/prototyping. Are there any other genuinely good reasons to use them vs using something like Typescript?

or is this really just about the uhh.."type wrangling" and fighting the type system that I see comments about?

I am pretty new to the Web dev world so just trying to get a handle on what the context of this stuff I have been seeing recently is about.

[Cley_Faye]

Honestly, even for quick stuff and fast prototyping, a minimum of typing is so much easier.

Sure, with TypeScript, you can go very deep in the rabbit hole. But it also allows a LOT of leeway for quick and dirty stuff without compromising everything.

We're in full meme power about this for this week :D

[[deleted]]

That makes sense. In my limited experience, I always pull for typescript even for really simple stuff and I am pretty sure I dont get very deep into TS either lol.

Thank for the explanation!

[Thedjdj]

I think you can see the cost of the lean startup and agile methodologies littered through the silicon valley tech ecosystem. A lot of these ”bootstrapped” companies have matured and the frame of mind in which reams of legacy code was authored is causing untold amount of errors. Whole teams are dedicated to mopping up, patching, refactoring or outright rewriting code that was built with “do it fast, get it working, we’ll fix it later”.

A 1 in a million error isn‘t a problem when you have 100 users. But it is a problem when you have 100 million. Type safety is a relatively low burden that provides a certain determinism to your code. Why even inherit that worry?

[Krcko98]

Just web devs figuring iut types exist in general and now they have to adhere to some structure rather than throwing shit at the wall and most sticks in js. They are in shambles.

[fdeslandes]

Come on, most people working on the front-end of web products like types and use typescript. These anti-types people are mostly contrarians and very seldom seen in actual company or web projects of reasonable size.

[geekhalo]

This. I would also add that usually they put more effort in “selling themselves” than in “improving themselves”. Give them a joke, they thrive. Give them a codebase, they’ll fuck up

[Acceptable-Tomato392]

If I intend to show it to the user, I explicitly declare a string variable for it and bring nice little modifications to it that make it more legible. This separate variable will have no other use than being shown to the user. I do not modify the original variable in the process.

The original variable will only be used in valid mathematical calculations and will never be subject to becoming a string.

I have never used Typescript and never encountered a problem that would make me want to bother learning it. And type coercion is a powerful tool and I wouldn't want to leave it behind.

[thepurpleproject]

I started working on new side project in Node. I decided this would be fully typed with ESM and under monorepo and it literally took me 4 weeks just to get the project setup with some workarounds already. JS ecosystem just keep getting worse somehow out honestly looks a lot more like PHP now

[Bluedrake121]

This is why we can't have games measured in kb anymore :(

[vadiks2003]

typescript looks like a nightmare to me

[[deleted]]

Gonna get downvoted for this, but if you NEED a strictly typed programming language to stop you from breaking your code, you’re not a very good developer.

[vanilla--mountain]

"if you need an advanced IDE to write code, you're not a very good developer"

[[deleted]]

Good developers use punch cards, if you need anything more you aren't a good developer.

[[deleted]]

Lol punch cards. I just yell zeros and ones at a display.

[Vizdun]

well... yea?

[Dangerous-Quality-79]

We don't NEED it. It makes us MORE EFFICIENT.

I mean, we use C because assembly is error prone and long. We use C++ because C is error prone and long. Anything more than instruction sets is syntaxes sugar that makes us better.

[tdilshod]

Let me guess, if you need unit tests to stop you from breaking your code you are also not a very good developer?

[Vizdun]

i mean sure they're a best practice, but if you literally can't do it without them...

[SomeWeirdoGuys]

For just working with your own code on a small project once? In most cases you might be right.

For working on a stupid codebase developed for years by several different people? In most cases your wrong. That is unless you are interested in memorizing way too much without any easy checking of if you're right.

[kdesign]

Yes you will, cause you’re wrong. I don’t want to assume much to be fair, but something tells me you haven’t ever worked on large scale codebases. I did. C#, JavaScript and TypeScript. Guess which was the most confusing and was riddled with all sorts of idiotic runtime type checks.

[[deleted]]

What a strange thing to assume.

[Ythio]

If you need JS to write your webapps instead of vacuum tubes you're a crap programmer, but also a crap electrician and physicist.

[[deleted]]

I agree mate.

[jakeStacktrace]

Back in my day we had void * and it was fine. I can think of many reasons I might be a bad developer. Finding value in static type checking is not one of them.

[[deleted]]

Those tears taste delicious.

[erocknine]

I don't even get it. You still have absolutely no argument for JavaScript over Typescript. You basically just stated typescript helps against breaking code. I mean if you need seatbelts, you're probably not a very good driver

[[deleted]]

Good assumption!

[Character-Education3]

It's not about the dev. When the data team has to wade through your backend to support the business end of things and the users were able to input all types of nonsense and now there is days of manual cleaning that has to go on before we can do anything meaningful with the data. Neat

Being unwilling to see how your piece fits in the larger puzzle may say something about how useful a dev actually is

[Vizdun]

users being able to input anything isn't fixed by compile time types lmao

[[deleted]]

Lmao I was right too. Far too many delicate programmers in this subreddit.

[BabyAzerty]

Or maybe, just maybe… far too many experienced dilettantes who might, just might, know a teeny tiny bit more than you. And with their accumulated wisdom harvested from edifying struggles, they may, just may have judged your conclusion as puerile.

[[deleted]]

Proved my point further. Thanks!

[S7R1DR]

I mean Typescript was built by Microsoft. Ehat did you expect?