Comments by "Okie" (@okie9025) on "Big projects are ditching TypeScript… why?" video.

  1. "shuffling around dependencies" will not solve typing problems. Think of config objects - I'd much rather have "type gymnastics" in the type definition than "config: object".
    115
  2.  @neociber24  exactly, DHH is playing the 10000 IQ long game by reducing types to give developers more easy work that could've been avoided with Typescript, for the same pay
    7
  3. 1. Taking advice about TYPES from the maker of the most magic-oriented framework... Really? There's a reason why everybody is shifting to static types and magic-less code. 2. JSDoc will never, and I mean NEVER, be an adequate replacement for Typescript. TS is more than just a simple type annotation system. Especially if you're a library developer. 3. "type gymnastics" is a bad name for a good thing. Think of the way Rust types work - everything must be correct, and you cannot "any" your way out of validating types. I'd much rather have objects with proper generic types and constraints, than "any".
    7
  4. quite the opposite, actually
    5
  5. This might be the only good thing about removing TS lol
    4
  6.  @gileee  "unimportant ts bs" just tells me your code is unsafe and littered with "any". There's a reason why these rules exist.
    3
  7.  @gileee  "all these other libs" like what? Literally nobody is ditching TS except Svelte (after a long negotiation period) and Turbo (the developer is braindead). Also I'd much rather use the TS snippet you posted than "string". Autocomplete and type safety make what you claim as "unimportant ts bs" very important indeed. Especially as a library dev, you ought to use very specific TS types and avoid simplifying your code.
    3
  8.  @ya4dang1  no thank you, Rust has way more mental gymnastics involved than even the most complex TS codebase
    3
  9. what's the alternative? (if you say rust or go you're stupid)
    2
  10. agreed
    2