Top voices on TypeScript: Anders Hejlsberg, David Heinemeier Hansson, Dan Luu, Tim Sweeney and 7 others.
They split on whether types prevent bugs, or mostly buy better tools, and on how strict they should be.
Our reading of what a group of claims have in common, one level above a korrent: a korrent is our reading of what somebody said, a view is our reading of what several korrents share. The claims are printed under it, so the sentence can be checked against them.
Nobody is filed under a view — claims are. A person is named here because a dated claim of theirs sits under it, and somebody whose claims sit under two views appears under both.
Guillermo RauchKelsey HightowerAlice RyhlAnders HejlsbergDillon Mulroy
A viewour reading
Their wordsAgents are only as good as the proof-checkers, compilers, type systems, and linters you give them.
Their wordsThe thing that makes Kubernetes powerful, there's a data model. We gave infrastructure a type system. So instead of imperative shell scripts, you finally had types.
Their wordsI think to have a language that feels this way you have to have a type system. That's where it all starts.
Where this was said
Watch from 0:05:48 plays hereTheir wordswe knew from experience that you cannot build good tooling without a type system. You can build decent tooling, but it's never going to scale. It's never going to scale to large teams cuz you can't describe your intents in in the code.
Their wordsAnd the reason they came, I think, is absolutely because of the the better tooling. And I think we were totally right there that like adding a an erasable type system and then using that to enable great tooling is really where the pro where the programmer productivity boost is realized.
Their wordsthe most important typescript feature is discriminated unions and everyone should be using them more
A viewour reading
Their wordsThey're still stuck in, essentially, I like static typing. Therefore, static typing is the only way to create reliable correct systems, which is just such a mind blowing, to be blunt, idiotic thing to say in the face of evidence, mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Their wordsIt's the essence of what makes Ruby Ruby. This is why I don't fully understand when people call for Ruby to add static typing. 'Cause to me, it's the bedrock of what this is.
Their wordsTypeScript just gets in the way of that for me. Not just because it requires an explicit compile step, but because it pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief.
Their wordsThe summary of the summary is that most studies find very small effects, if any.
Their wordsBut while I like languages with expressive type systems, I haven't noticed that they make me more productive or less bug prone
A viewour reading
Their wordsSo, if we're checking 99% instead of 100%, well, heck, that's better than the 0% that JavaScript checked, right? And it gives you like language features that no other languages can provide because they can't get to 100%.
Their wordsThe thing that makes it interesting, I think, and and unlike pretty much any other programming language is the gradual typing. This This notion that you can have types, but you don't have to have types.
Their wordsThe dynamic type system provides flexibility and easy meta-programming, while the static type system removes the overhead in most of your code.
Their wordsMany advocate dynamic typing because they think static typing automatically require manifest typing. With the auto keyword and use of template functions, C++ is moving further and further away from that dreadful paradigm :)
A viewour reading
Their wordsEnsuring that moving, borrowing, and sharing don't break the illusion is surprisingly easy to do with a static type system, and surprisingly hard to do with a dynamic type system, or at least hard to do cheaply.
Their wordsBut there are other parts of programming languages that are not subjective but should be fundamental. And when you look at type systems, there is a way to do type systems that gives you mathematical proofs. And every other way of type systems that doesn't give you mathematical proofs is just worse and should ultimately be rejected.
Their wordsOne thing that drives me crazy about the React ecosystem, and more specifically "tech influencers" and "thought leaders" in the space, is the infantilization of the developers using and working in it. I’m tired of reading takes like TypeScript generics, mapped types, etc should only be needed and used by library authors for most use cases. Or today’s discourse; Don’t use `useCallback’, ‘useMemo’, and React.memo. If you’re building anything beyond a simple CRUD app or a an incredibly focused app with few features, you _will_ need these features.
Their wordsRight? They just do not touch the core of this problem. Right? They're safety nets, but they're nothing more than that.
Where this was said
Watch from 0:59:42 plays hereMatched by wording, not yet read into a view. The archive grows on its own, so this is where new claims wait for somebody to read them.
The full chronology, with every quote: TypeScript as a timeline · person by person, side by side · all topics · Something wrong? Tell us