That’s the beauty though, isn’t it. Most bugs are trivial. I appreciate typescript getting the trivial bugs right more often than I’d trust myself to do so.
Right? The argument that static/strict typing mostly catches trivial bugs isn't an argument against the value of that language, and yet people seem to think it is!
I have to disagree. Adding the types will increase the number of the characters/lines of code which with a 80-char formatter limit can make functions look almost gibberish at a glance. Do that on a whole codebase and it becomes a mess to look at.
The verbosity of TypeScript types can be attributed to poor choice of syntax and names that became obvious retrospectively.
Still even with TypeScript if types makes your functions ugly, then it shows the complexity of the code. Often it also suggests sensible refactoring that without types would not be apparent.
The only way it can not be noise is if you have no idea what your types are. That's a terrible way to code.
If I'm working on a function foo(bar, baz), I know exactly what bar and baz are before looking at a single line of it, I've been tracing the code through to that function, how could I not know what the data types are at that point?
And I have to disagree in turn. Those additional characters and lines of code are documentation, and turn gibberish into not only human-readable clarity about the code you’re reading, but a machine-traversable dependency graph as well.
Character input time is a vanishingly small concern for overall productivity. If it's a concern then you'll probably catch more bugs by slowing down to think.
Typing it is not the problem. It is reading at a glance that becomes much harder since lines oftentimes get split into multilines. I get less of an overview.