the interface's instance methods).
It... doesn't have any effect? As usual, this comes off as someone who assumes I haven't worked on numerous projects written in TypeScript throughout the years, and haven't attempted to give it (and, as I mentioned in a previous comment, CoffeeScript) a fair shake. If the JSDoc syntax is too limiting, you can define your types in a TypeScript file and import them later. Typescript neither encourages nor inhibits you from using it, but I think you'll find that the majority of Typescript developers don't use classes. To sum it up, I think TypeScript will continue to grow in popularity for the foreseeable future. - no, I sure hope not. Hi, I am just learning TypeScript and trying to convert my game using the best practices and taking advantage of all TypeScript features. That's not something you get with JSDoc; more npm modules have correct Typescript typings than JSDoc documentation.

Feel free to hack at JS to make it behave like the language you wish it were." NBD, and I'd say encouraging devs not to use them is a plus, but I'm not the one who called them an improvement to JavaScript, and making something harder (which is still commonly used in TS, seen it plenty of times) isn't the way to discourage it. If the developer time saved and bugs prevented is more than the bandwidth costs and time difference, it's worth it. I didn't plan to learn JS or TS. It's basically everything Kyle Simpson warned about in YDKJS.

If not, what is your testing strategy to make sure you didn't get things wrong.

Big company X transitioning their codebase to TypeScript and catching Y percent more bugs before deployment while doing all this Z percent more efficiently. For example you could add a strip: true to the object to tell WebPack or whatever to strip out all type checks of that Interface. strictly) set-up TypeScript forces you to add proper typings to all functions, classes, and other constructs, it almost automatically results in better code quality and documentation. It's a PITA for me to read / write plain JS. So I'll leave by recommending they check out Ryan Dahl's (Node.js and Deno creator's) recent experiences and motivation for moving away from TS for Deno's internals, and especially Kyle Simpson's (YDKKS author's) comments (some of which are the same beefs I have) as to why that's a bad idea. I'm done.

I didn't say I'd impose Typescript on anyone, but it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. All valid Javascript is valid Typescript. * * @interface */ function Color() {} /** * Get the color as an array of red, green, and blue values, represented as * decimal numbers between 0 and 1.

Web Developer. There are many competing and co-existing futures, some of which may be more or less popular.

It's that simple and with it, we've already properly documented our function with type information included! I usually hear, as I did earlier in this thread, "not the type of dev I'd want to hire."

Not that Typescript classes are harder to use, but that most Typescript, and Javascript, users don't feel the need to use them. TypeScript "syntactic sugar" while not necessarily more capable than JSDoc, is certainly much cleaner and plain better for defining complex types and interfaces. Don't see any negative opinions here. Common issues like typos, data inconsistencies, etc. But it doesn't mean that all do, as indicated by all the TypeScript critics out in the wild.
I doubt your life experiences were extensive enough for you to be able to make an informed decision on whether Typescript is useful for a project or not if you were unable to get basic things right. After the initial hassle of rewriting everything with proper typings included, you can expect better and faster development experience down the road. That's why I think it's important to consider all different opinions regarding TypeScript, to determine what the future holds for now-successful JavaScript super-set. I literally quoted you saying ES6 classes are harder in TypeScript.

Some other sources are.

Your beloved superset ends up not only being superfluous, but detrimental. to your account. The statically-typed nature of TypeScript is believed to result in fewer errors during runtime when compared to dynamic JavaScript.

I again didn't say this, please avoid putting words in my mouth. tuple, User (or even dev)'s input in Chrome DevTools, or generated JavaScript. I'd rather enforce the (much simpler, and more necessary) standard comment syntax of JSDOC than that plus a bunch of extra crap which isn't actually part of the language.

It's important in checkJs mode as JavaScript doesn't have native interfaces. Typescript allows JS to compete in similar space.

Honestly, as you've probably heard a couple of times now - TypeScript isn't going to replace JavaScript any time soon.

For more up-to-date TypeScript and web development stuff, follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and consider checking out my personal blog.