this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
238 points (98.8% liked)

Programming

21545 readers
404 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why? Why not improve JS (e.g. with Temporal), especially given how excellent Typescript is?

[–] Sheldan@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call typescript excellent, if I did it would be on a very low standard.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It unquestionably is excellent. Can you name another language in common use with a type system that's close to the expressiveness of Typescript?

[–] expr@programming.dev 3 points 8 hours ago

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Typescript has a decent type system, but it's hardly state of the art. It's impressive how they've managed to mostly corral JavaScript into something much more sane, but at the end of the day it still suffers greatly from the limitations of JavaScript. They've essentially retrofitted some type theory onto JavaScript to make it possible to express JavaScript nonsense in the type system, but there's plenty of things that would have been designed differently had they been making something from scratch. Not to mention that the type system is unsound by design, which by itself puts it behind languages designed from the ground up to have sound type systems.

There's many, many things missing from the type system, like higher-kinded types, type-driven deriving/codegen, generalized algebraic data types (aka GADTs), type families (and relatedly, associated types), existentially-quantified types, and much more.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How? It's easy not to run into the common issues by using TS. What's so bad about it that we should throw away the existing ecosystem?

Please give arguments instead of platitudes.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don’t need to use TS to avoid common issues. If you add an empty object to an empty array and expect a meaningful result, the problem sits in front of the keyboard.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Sure, discipline can prevent some errors. But it's always possible to run into wrong type assumptions, and I'd say type coercion and null/undefined access make up a fairly large percentage of non-logic errors. You can entirely prevent those using Typescript, which is why it's so useful.

Static type analysis is always a good idea if you're writing more than a couple lines. IMO Python is the worst offender with its kwargs etc. - discoverability and testability is just so bad if you're following common Python idioms.