You're not the only one. I don't hate Typescript, but I don't think it's necessarily worth using everywhere. I like using it for libraries that I might share or reuse, that contain some complex logic, in which case it helps my code keep guarantees. But for view-layer code, I really don't get why a lot of people are dying to use Typescript that way.
Beyond that, pretty much every Typescript project I've been introduced to suffers from just as many bugs as codebases that use plain JavaScript. Strict typing at compile time doesn't replace conscientious development practices and rigorous testing.
> But for view-layer code, I really don't get why a lot of people are dying to use Typescript that way.
"view-layer code" is underselling how complex many modern webapps can get. When you've got 10+ engineers across 2+ teams running around in your 30,000+ line codebase, TypeScript offers a lot of benefits and makes overall iteration speed much much faster.
You don't need TypeScript for small/personal projects though. As long as everything fits in your memory, you're fine.
Typing only eliminates a certain class of bugs. And user-defined type systems scare me. I loved ReasonML precisely because you got typing (and confident enforcement) for free through the HM type system, but TypeScript always struck me as the embodiment of "now you have two problems"
Agreed. If I'm dealing with strong static types, good inference (and TS / Rust / Whatever ain't it) is a must.
'
If I'm going to invoke a bunch of ceremony every time I blink might as well write Java.
Beyond that, pretty much every Typescript project I've been introduced to suffers from just as many bugs as codebases that use plain JavaScript. Strict typing at compile time doesn't replace conscientious development practices and rigorous testing.