If you can use Effect for TypeScript, you should -- to the point of not starting a new project without it.

Added to korrents 2 Sept 2026 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Where this collides

• Cannot both be true

  TypeScript's type annotations cost more in friction than they return in safety, and a front-end framework is better off written in plain JavaScript.

  Mulroy says that if you can use Effect for TypeScript you should, to the point of not starting a new project without it. Hansson says TypeScript’s annotations cost more in friction than they return in safety and that a front-end framework is better off in plain JavaScript. One would not start without the heavier type machinery and the other would not start with it.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.

• A programming language is a ten-year play: version one has issues, version two fixes them, version three is finally good — and only then does adoption start. AHAnders Hejlsberg13 May 2026TypeScript
• A proprietary language licensed from Microsoft had zero chance in the JavaScript ecosystem: TypeScript had to be open source or nobody would come. AHAnders Hejlsberg13 May 2026TypeScript
• Because its types are erased before the program runs, TypeScript can afford not to be sound: checking 99% beats the 0% JavaScript checked, and buys features a sound language cannot offer. AHAnders Hejlsberg13 May 2026TypeScript
• Discriminated unions are the most important TypeScript feature, and everyone should be using them more. DMDillon Mulroy18 Dec 2024TypeScript
• For a TypeScript team, Rust belongs on the backend — API servers — and not in the front end. ARAlice Ryhl20 May 2026TypeScript

On the map

Open the map on its own page