[leshow]

> - It requires more planning to do anything

That's the idea. You think about what you're going to write in a strongly typed language rather than just throwing stuff at the wall hoping that something will stick.

> - The rigid interfaces mean that I need to spend more time researching how to use various modules/libraries

I don't understand this. In one case you have an API where the types of all the functions is available, so you can see almost right away how to use it. In the other case you have to rely on someone providing you really good documentation OR you read the implementation.

> - Changes to one class/interface tend to have a large cascading effect on other classes/interfaces so it takes more time to make changes to code - This happens with JS too but to a much lesser extent.

It's either you find the error at compile time or at run time. Don't kid yourself, there's a 'cascading effect' in both typed and untyped codebases, just in the typed one the compiler will help you find errors.

Granted, I'm not the biggest TS fan, I'd take Elm or Purescript, or even Flow. But your gripes seem to be directed to typed languages in general.

[jondubois]

>> - It requires more planning to do anything

> That's the idea. You think about what you're going to write in a strongly typed language rather than just throwing stuff at the wall hoping that something will stick.

I think this is a valid point for developers who only have a few years of experience but I've been coding professionally for over a decade now - I don't need the compiler to artificially slow me down - I'd rather spend my mental energy thinking about the algorithm/architecture in its purest form without getting caught up in trying to satisfy the compiler's tedious requirements.

For me programming in a typed language is like using software that always asks you "are you sure you want to do this?" every time you tell it to do something. It's OK if you're a beginner, but I just find it frustrating.

I spent many years programming in ActionScript 3 and then Java so I feel like I've given typed languages a fair shot.

[leshow]

> I don't need the compiler to artificially slow me down

It's slowing you down because you've written code with errors. Those type errors are still in your dynamic code, you just can't see them.

> I spent many years programming in ActionScript 3 and then Java so I feel like I've given typed languages a fair shot.

I don't think you have, you've missed many wonderful modern type system features.

Algebraic types, for one, aren't present in either of those languages and are massively useful, replacing 'null' (with a type like Option/Maybe) and exceptions (with a Result/Either concept) in many languages that have them.

Not to mention, with a language that has type inference, you don't even have to write the type in many cases, and yet you keep the guarantees of a strongly typed language.

[coldtea]

>I think this is a valid point for developers who only have a few years of experience but I've been coding professionally for over a decade now - I don't need the compiler to artificially slow me down

You'd be surprised.

There's a reason that developers after decades of dynamic languages turn increasingly to types (of which Flow and TS are examples in the JS world).