|
|
|
|
|
|
by toastal
1154 days ago
|
|
|
Can you? Certainly. Should you? Ehhhhh… The post is experimenting with the type system—which is neat—but before you think you should push this in production (having been in positions to work with heavy-FP’d code), consider an actual FP language if that’s the style you want. The ergonomics are so bad compared to any FP lang→JS option. Currying/partial application, first-class composition/bind/apply, pattern matching not using a ._tag property with a String key, and more are just missing (see: migrating from PureScript/Haskell[0] for fp-ts to see how verbose basic concepts becomes). The other issue is that with TypeScript being multiparadigm and idiomatic TS leaning to imperative/OO due to ergonomics and Java’s legacy on culture/education, there’s a good chance your coworkers/contributors will be expecting a non-FP style which will cause even more friction as you try to justify ‘purity’ to folks that just see a verbose codebase that likely is leaning hard into a lib, quality as it is, like fp-ts which cosplays as Haskell, PureScript, OCaml, Idris, et. al. [0]: https://gcanti.github.io/fp-ts/guides/purescript.html |
|
|