[Waterluvian]

Both. Static typing makes JavaScript well more than tolerable. Dare I say enjoyable! But I also love TS' duck typing and I love how it's totally optional.

The optionality is a special trait that most "real" static languages don't get to enjoy (for better or worse). By being optional, I can simply ignore types when I'm hacking/prototyping something and type safety/soundness is the last thing I care about. Rust, for example, can feel really tedious when it makes me "show my work" and I'm just trying to scribble something up quickly. If that makes sense? I just make `any` a linting error so I can use it during my experimentation/prototyping but I cannot ship it.

[foepys]

Typescript has quite a few pitfalls like the uselessness of Readonly<T>, which can just vanish with an assignment to a variable typed T where TS will neither warn nor error out nor require an explicit cast.

[zengid]

I agree. I feel like sketching in JS and solidifying in TS is super productive. Being able to go from a plain old JS object to a type is really satisfying. I feel like full stack TS might be a great choice for new web projects. And if you find a bottleneck, you could rewrite in Rust.

[h4ch1]

> And if you find a bottleneck, you could rewrite in Rust.

Sounds pretty extreme..? What kind of bottlenecks would you be talking about that would prompt me to re-write my entire application in another language?

[Dylan16807]

I'm pretty sure they mean rewrite the bottleneck.

[zengid]

no just rewrite the bottleneck/hot-path