Inm looking at you Typescript dev

"Typed language? Yeah, I'm using a keyboard."

I am currently teaching python and JavaScript devs Typescript. Everytime they hit a problem they switch to any

Sigh

Must be the same people who just comment out failing unit tests.
- "Your crappy tests are failing again on my branch. I've commented them out until you fix them."
- ...or skip em
the beatings will continue until typing improves
That's why I kinda don't like Python and JavaScript anymore. Every time I want types for a library it's gonna take me time to get it working. For every serious project I do, I use a strongly typed language.
Eslint is your friend :)
Just create a al Inter rule that rejects Any types and a pre-commit hook that refuses the commit if the linter fails. Sometimes the brute force approach is the best way to teach

I am happy there is no obvious "any" type in Rust.

There is, it's just not easy to use

Yeah, at some point my new team switched off null safety, because some consultants told them to.

Ride into the Danger Zone ...
- Indeed, and just as my old team fell for consultants, my new team also went ahead and let them add some overcomplex garbage into their codebases. And crap still keeps piling up. It's just like it's impossible for them to understand that from an average consultants perspective the only way to go forward is to keep adding complexity, wether they are aware of it or not.

i like when my strongly typed language can type itself, why should i have to type extra words because the compiler is stupid?

So that next time your coworker uses the wrong type, the compiler can scream at him: "NO I WONT COMPILE THIS YOU DUMBASS, LOOK JOHN SAID ON LINE 863 THAT IT SHOULD BE A DOUBLE, NOT A FLOAT FOR FUCK SAKE"
- Tell me you are a Java dev without telling me you are a a Java dev 😂
- you can still have that without having to declare the type manually. check out Swift or OCaml for example

Does it compile???

... Compile???

And if you have linter rules preventing any as a boundary type you just use Record<String, any>.

I'm in this post and I don't like it.

That being said I try to have specific types in my typescript but coming from working without typescript, there's so much more words involved using typescript and for what I use it for I don't really see the use case. Sure it helps you realize what part of the script needs what data types but it adds so much more complexity in the code that I'm not really sure it's worth in the first place.

Typescript saves ridiculous amounts of time in bugfixes and is IMO a lot more readable than JS.

I don't know how many times TS has complained about some type mismatch in my code that made me scratch my head for 2 seconds to only then realize I was doing something stupid. With plain JS that would've been no issue, until I have some obscure bug 30 minutes later and have to figure out it's source.

Also, whatever piece of code you are working on, to do anything you have to have the types of your variables/functions in mind. If you have to keep track of all of them in your head, you will definitely mess it up at some point or have to look through a bunch of different methods/files to track down the source of some piece of data to be certain what's contained in it.

So yeah, TS might take slightly longer to type out, but it saves you a lot of dev time.
- I mean I guess that could be helpful, I've never really had that issue so I have yet to see the benefit of it. I just find it useless work that you're typing out for something that the engine itself isn't going to be able to see anyway, which means you're going to have to have unit tests coded in regardless. And I wouldn't say just a little more coding, typescript when implemented into my project doubled the amount of code provided, I'm trying to use it because I do understand it's a standard, but I really don't understand why it's a universal standard, considering that everything it does is completely syntax sugar/coder side and it doesn't actually interact with the underlying engine. I feel the same way about coffee script honestly.

typescript is not a strongly typed language

I mean that is the first step. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ The next step is to start defining the types more strictly than any.

Hmmm a more reasonable first step would be to just not even type anything until you're ready. But TS makes it hard to iteratively type parts of your codebase over time. One could type using JSDoc syntax for these cases, though.
- Yeah, true

Well, you can always just add the type definitions later on.

I did port some C code to D, by just pasting it in a D file, then fixing the differences (changing type names, rewriting precompiler macros with D metaprogramming and inline functions, etc.).