News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by eropple on Sunday October 13, 2019 @03:21PM (#21242314)
YMMV, but I’m less worried about “clean and fun” and much more worried about rugged and correct. TypeScript makes it easier to unambiguously express intent both inside an application and when talking to external modules. Some parts of the syntax are unfortunate but I care about that a lot less than I do not having my systems break.

I’d switch and I wouldn’t look back. I did switch my focus of learning and use, albeit from Ruby and Kotlin (which is better than nothing but nominative typing is insufficient IMO) to TypeScript, and it was among the best decisions I’ve made in my professional career.

Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by The_rationalist on Sunday October 13, 2019 @05:49PM (#21243351)
What do you think about nominal typing vs structural typing? My friends that have been only used to statically typed, nominal programming languages, thinks this is the worst feature of TypeScript.
Re:How we failed, then succeeded, at migrating to TypeScript by eropple on Sunday October 13, 2019 @06:37PM (#21243684)
I don’t hate nominative typing but TypeScript has definitely coached me towards thinking more about data and operations on data. It does a lot to encourage you to move away from the traditional OOP patterns that make most people dunk on Java.

If I had to directly compare the two I think nominative typing is superior only in the case where you have two identically-shaped (down to the property name) classes that have different semantics. I feel like if you are in this situation you should take a very large step back and re-think your decisions.