[rglover]

I have, yes. From a team perspective, there's zero technical difference between TypeScript types and a combination of default args and type checker functions. The same ends are achieved, but in a far less kludgy way that's overt. In the event a type checker is missing, it can be added/documented quickly with zero time wasted on trying to answer "what's the TypeScript way to do this?"

Types aren't the difficult part, it's TypeScript that's difficult. The documentation is a nightmare and in my experience I saw "any" types being used far too often (which literally defeats the purpose of using TypeScript).

[dmux]

>there's zero technical difference between TypeScript types and a combination of default args and type checker functions

I may be missing something, but aren't your type checker functions called at runtime whereas Typescript would be doing static type checking at compile time?

[rglover]

They are, but in practice there's little difference in the ends because you're getting the same feedback (did I pass the right type, yes or no). Like calling someone on a cell phone vs. a land line.

If the type of data you're passing around is erratic beyond development (where, just like TypeScript, a function-based approach illuminates incorrect data being passed around), you're writing bad code and TypeScript is nothing more than a crutch.

I expect most hardline TypeScript people to disagree, but type errors are the least of my concerns thanks to the above approach. It's not just an opinion; it's based on experience/evidence [1].

[1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

[sibeliuss]

Yes, you are correct. It is clear the OP doesn't understand the purpose of typescript.

[rglover]

I understand perfectly, but in practice I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.

[ink]

Fair enough if you have another way that works!