5 ms·

>and has the best parts of Typescript I really like C#, but I wouldn't go that far - unions are at least on the horizon, but I've sometimes come to miss the po

by dahauns 10mo ago

>and has the best parts of Typescript I really like C#, but I wouldn't go that far - unions are at least on the horizon, but I've sometimes come to miss the power and flexibility of TS's structural typing...(And so has Hejlsberg, apparently, seeing his reasoning for choosing go over C# for tsc :) )

thiago_fm 10mo ago
Might be my own taste, but except a few of the common and easy to understand structural typing code, I find it sometimes actually make things needlessly complex. I also write lots of Typescript, and the furthest I go is to use 'Omit' and other utility types, but already feel like it's too much.
- Timon3 10mo ago
  I've come to really appreciate Typescripts structural typing, because it reduces some of the overhead & prevents the unnecessarily tight coupling that has often annoyed me in other languages. The overhead argument seems fairly objective to me - clean code with low coupling in C# et al. requires separate definitions of interfaces and implementations, explicit conversion methods between compatible interfaces etc. This adds up over time and makes refactoring pretty annoying. The tight coupling happens when people don't bother to define interfaces. Suddenly I have to couple class hierarchy to classes from unrelated modules, all so the compiler is happy when I pass structurally equivalent data. To keep my own modules clean I have to add yet more interfaces, conversion methods etc!
  - neonsunset 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - thiago_fm 10mo ago
    It prefer static functions and stuff we can quickly understand, avoiding big objects or a great deal of indirection. Don't tell Uncle Bob! Of course, you'd still need interfaces for DI, mocking etc, but that's pretty most of my interface usage.
vips7L 10mo ago
I hope once they introduce unions, they also introduce some sort of error union.
mrsmrtss 10mo ago
>And so has Hejlsberg, apparently, seeing his reasoning for choosing go over C# for tsc It was more related to the fact that the existing TS code was more easily ported to Go, and also .NET AOT wasn't mature enough at that time. Structural typing has its own problems. I'm personally not a big fan of it.

by dahauns 10mo ago

thiago_fm 10mo ago

Might be my own taste, but except a few of the common and easy to understand structural typing code, I find it sometimes actually make things needlessly complex. I also write lots of Typescript, and the furthest I go is to use 'Omit' and other utility types, but already feel like it's too much.

Timon3 10mo ago
I've come to really appreciate Typescripts structural typing, because it reduces some of the overhead & prevents the unnecessarily tight coupling that has often annoyed me in other languages. The overhead argument seems fairly objective to me - clean code with low coupling in C# et al. requires separate definitions of interfaces and implementations, explicit conversion methods between compatible interfaces etc. This adds up over time and makes refactoring pretty annoying. The tight coupling happens when people don't bother to define interfaces. Suddenly I have to couple class hierarchy to classes from unrelated modules, all so the compiler is happy when I pass structurally equivalent data. To keep my own modules clean I have to add yet more interfaces, conversion methods etc!
- neonsunset 10mo ago
  [dead]
- thiago_fm 10mo ago
  It prefer static functions and stuff we can quickly understand, avoiding big objects or a great deal of indirection. Don't tell Uncle Bob! Of course, you'd still need interfaces for DI, mocking etc, but that's pretty most of my interface usage.

vips7L 10mo ago

I hope once they introduce unions, they also introduce some sort of error union.

mrsmrtss 10mo ago

>And so has Hejlsberg, apparently, seeing his reasoning for choosing go over C# for tsc It was more related to the fact that the existing TS code was more easily ported to Go, and also .NET AOT wasn't mature enough at that time. Structural typing has its own problems. I'm personally not a big fan of it.