[dismalaf]

> It seems you have a lot of opinion here without really discussing your problem with type hints. What is it you dislike?

It's runtime overhead (or you make a transpiler which then makes the language less dynamic), makes metaprogramming more annoying (other languages solve this with an "any" type which just defeats the purpose), and the "problem" it solves can be solved with tests which you should be writing anyway.

I do use statically typed languages BTW, I just prefer that if I'm going to go through the rigmarole of types that I'm going to get some actual benefit, namely an order of magnitude more performance.

My opinion is probably this since I don't work for a large corporation, I have my own startup, so I value my time a lot. I'm ok with trade-offs, I just think adding type hints to a dynamic language isn't a good trade off; it's almost all downside.

Edit:

> guessing and praying that test coverage is good enough.

You can always improve your test coverage...

[tracker1]

For me, at least with TypeScript the single biggest advantage is the hinting you get from 3rd party packages/modules. This goes for building modules as well, you can use jsdoc directly, but it's even more cumbersome than TS imo.

[dismalaf]

It's kind of annoying that static type introspection has become the norm for language servers because live environments are so much better. With Ruby you have the REPL and there have been IDEs and tools that allow runtime reflection which is just so much better (think Lisp or Smalltalk). LSPs are nice for static languages but compared to live environments they're a step down...