• alokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    The title makes it seem like it’s a wide spread thing in the industry but according to the video it’s 3 frameworks.

    Yeah, it’s additional work but I’ve found that really convoluted or complex type definitions usually mean you should consider refactoring. Of course this is a bit different when it comes to developing frameworks where you might want to support a bunch of different use cases.

    Maybe I’m biased because I’ve been using TS ever since it first came out.

    • jeremyparker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      And Rich Harris (Svelte) said, it’s an issue for people in his position, aka, people making tools for developers - he fully expects and respects that the end users (developers using those tools) don’t really experience the downsides.

      That said, I feel like we’re seeing a lot of versions of complaints about how big the stacks are getting, how big the foundation is that we “need” just to get started. That desire for minimalism is core to the developer mentality imo, it makes us good at our jobs. I think we’re going to see more paring down and culling in the coming months/years.

  • TheLurker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think people should watch a few other videos from this person. His channel is satire.

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Just because something is satire doesn’t mean it is untrue.

        Okay, some of his content could be considered more serious. But the overall aesthetic of the channel is clearly satirical in form.

        • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Technically correct, but saying this channel is satire sounds like this channel is a parody and this video isn’t meant seriously. It sounds like this channel would do kinda do the same type of content that “Samtime” or “Programmers are also human” does.

          • TheLurker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Parody is different to satire.

            Parody is an imitation of another piece of media or work where you are making comedic commentary of that work.

            Satire is using comedy to offer commentary, to carry a message, or to offer criticism about the world.

            Yes, like Programmers are also human. That is satire as well, same as Fireship.

            • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              It’s satire, but it’s a different kind of satire. When I hear satire I think of Programmers are also human and his content is completely different than fireship’s.

    • Stephen304@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Imo calling his channel satire for his use of comedy is akin to calling TechLinked satire because of their use of comedic quips, heckler, and goofy quick bits transitions. Satire implies a level of irony or insincerity, which I don’t think code report falls under. His videos might be comedic but the topics covered are serious and factual.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 years ago

      I clicked, sorta interested in the topic because as it happens I just abandoned Typescript in favor of learning Go for a little nascent project I’m working on. (We do these things not because they are easy, but because they eventually will be good which Typescript+Node apparently never will for my particular project.) Then I saw it was Fireship and clicked back away.

      Now it sounds like you’re saying that what they’re claiming is the issue is the one good thing that happened with Javascript in the last however-many years. Yes, it’s a little tedious to have to straighten out all your types. You know what’s more tedious than that? Having to straighten out all your types, but not getting any feedback about it at compile time and having to figure it out based on mysterious failures, or if you’re lucky explicit exceptions, at runtime.

      Having worked for a while in Javascript, and now for a pretty short time in Typescript, I cannot imagine trying to make a decent-complexity project in pure Javascript. That I believe is why they tend to not really be all that object-oriented and pass strings around for lots of things and be sorta flaky.

      • atheken@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Yeah, dropping typescript and then codifying type information in jsdoc is comical.

        The only thing I would say about your experience is that “dropping TS for go” is a little bit misleading, and it doesn’t really sound like it bears on the general debate of “TS vs. JS” - go and other static languages generally fit a different niche in my opinion, and can be a better option for certain kinds of systems.

        If you’re building anything of even moderate complexity, or with more than one person, you really need the types and modularity that TS provides.

        I guess it’s also worth noting that JS has actually been influenced/adopted some key features from TS over the years, so it’s possible to do a few things with it to make stuff that’s a bit more maintainable.

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yah, 100% agree. So in my case, Typescript is actually a better fit niche-wise… but I finally reached the point where I didn’t want to cope anymore with flawed things it was inheriting from Javascript, so it was especially ironic to me when I saw this and thought maybe I’m not the only one, only to discover that the message was “SIIIKE we love the flawed things! It’s the improvements we’re getting rid of.”

          I mean every project is different and they’ve got a right to do what they want. It was just a hilarious surprise for me.

  • T (they/she)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    I never met someone that actually used Typescript in a professional setting saying they dislike it. It makes your life easier and you can still have parts of your project using regular JS.

  • ComeSweetDeath@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    good. typescript has always caused us more headache than it worth in all my projects. I bill my clients extra for it if they make me work on it.