undefined

points

[-]

I don't know what kind of LLMs you're using but mine (Claude) has never once in 6 months got the type incorrect; neither with JavaScript nor TypeScript. So what's the point of type safety if it never gets the type wrong?

All the LLM issues I face are related to incorrect priorities, choosing the wrong tradeoffs, UX and UI flaws or incorrect assumption about requirements.

Why would I want to fill up my context window with useless type annotations and waste tokens generating them? Just like I don't want to be distracted thinking about types when I code, I don't want my LLM to be distracted by them either. Also, I don't want to waste time waiting for the transpiler to build. I don't use bundling nowadays - Not necessary if I use plain JS; instead I preload all my frontend libraries and distribute them individually; better for caching and they still download in parallel. I don't have to invalidate the entire bundle cache just because I updated one script.

Also, I don't want my LLM to generate over-engineered enterprise code. My priority is to get stuff done, not achieve job security.

by sophacles4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Some of us have the job "get stuff done correctly" though.

by xenophonf11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Strong static typing is an absolute must for building anything bigger than trivial systems

I was under the impression that TypeScript is only statically typed, not strongly typed, too. Am I mistaken?

by jayar959 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In casual convo, I often hear strong typing conflated with static typing. Its generally fine unless im being pedantic for sport. Typescript has a stronger typing system than javascript, but depending on your audience, some might not consider typescript a strongly typed language because of things like `any`, type assertions, and lack of runtime guarantees to name a few

by WorldMaker3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Structural typing versus nominal typing is another one that often upsets "strong type" fans, because structural typing looks weak (but is still stronger than "no typing").