> I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing
The OP is interesting in talking about how much of a pain in the ass TS tooling is, and... it's fair to say it's annoying.
If you accept that static types are good (and the OP explicitly said they do), then what are going to do? Basically the OP is saying, "I want static types but not the TSC compiler or ecosystem"; well... it sucks, but you're never going to get that.
The comment you're replying to is just saying: "Well, if you want static types, you gotta live with the bad stuff".
> Doesn't your counter-argument beg the question whether it is indeed 20% BS vs. 80% value?
Let me clarify - I pretty much agree with what the parent says - "it's more like 70% BS vs. 30% value".
I do still want that value i.e. static typing, but as you point out I can't get that without the BS. And so I would rather have no typing which is the only other option (except using a different language).
> And so I would rather have no typing which is the only other option (except using a different language).
This part is what is so wild to me. I simply cannot imagine throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, to throw out the entirety of static typing just because of the BS around it. In my experience, static typing is superlative, it would have to be some extremely rare situation for me to give it up.
I spent 6 years programming production JS delivered to millions of people before I went to TS and it just wasn't that bad. The code was clean, and the team didn't ship many bugs - this was for a big frontend and ~12 microservices.
Webpack added a lot of overhead - but if you know what came before it, it was a godsend. React added a super complex library, vs Backbone which was only a few hundred lines of code but React is totally worth it.
I'm not just trying to hark back to "the good old days", I think the ecosystem is a big improvement from where it came from but I just haven't seen enough benefit from TS for all the work you need to put in.
> I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it is well understood that static typing is a good thing
The OP is interesting in talking about how much of a pain in the ass TS tooling is, and... it's fair to say it's annoying.
If you accept that static types are good (and the OP explicitly said they do), then what are going to do? Basically the OP is saying, "I want static types but not the TSC compiler or ecosystem"; well... it sucks, but you're never going to get that.
The comment you're replying to is just saying: "Well, if you want static types, you gotta live with the bad stuff".
> Doesn't your counter-argument beg the question whether it is indeed 20% BS vs. 80% value?
Nope.