You Might Not Need TypeScript (or Static Types)
Eric Elliott

I wish someone from the F# team would have been in charge of TypeScript. They would have understood the dynamic/functional ways of JavaScript better. Instead it was a bunch of OO guys that don’t understand the nature of functional programming (they do, but they didn’t really make it first class, they targeted the OO crowd first).

Having said that I prefer TypeScript over nothing since it does help me understand what is going on in the code more. But like you said, there are other tools that do just as good of a job as TypeScript if not better. So, if I would have learned one of those tools first, I might have liked them better. Maybe one day I’ll get a chance. My over all experience with TypeScript is that it gives you the feeling of safety but doesn’t deliver. Not like other type systems do.

A full static type system like Elm or PureScript or F# would give lots of benefits. Elm users talk about how they never have run time errors in their code. I would expect the same for PureScript/F#. Now other types of errors need to be tested for still. F# gives you the type inference.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.