this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
-14 points (43.4% liked)
Programming
17333 readers
361 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
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.