• Bipta@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • alr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.