Hacker News Reader

Comment by arkanciscan | Hacker News Reader

JamStack is "so hot right now"

I like zeit/now, but Netlify is also very good. Whatever you use for hosting, it should have GitHub integration to auto-deploy branches. If you don't want to deal with a middleman at least use a framework like SAM, Serverless, or ant.codes.

The frontend should be React (preferably wrapped with a convenience layer like Create React App, or Next.js so you don't have to handle Webpack yourself). The more interesting question is how to manage state. Use something like Apollo or AWS Amplify for this because mapping REST-JSON to state is so 2014.

Redux is a waste of time.

TypeScript can die in a fire, and if you disagree you should join it.

View on HN

Please don't do this here.

Do what exactly? Participate in discussion? Voice my frustrations? Contradict the popular opinion?

You know, I think I agree. Commenting on this site is a huge waste of time.

I thought it was obvious, but in case not: please don't post flamebait like "$language can die in a fire". We're trying to avoid programming language flamewars (or any flamewars) here. They get repetitive very quickly, and nasty too.

Also, can you please not post unsubstantive comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822655? We're trying for more thoughtful conversation here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site to heart, we'd be grateful.

Btw, I tend to agree with you on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810266 and thought that was well put.

> TypeScript can die in a fire, and if you disagree you should join it.

This is probably a poor attempt at satire, but I'll bite. Actually yes, I'd rather disagree and jump in the fire to use TypeScript than to plod along using JavaScript with its clumsy type-system, designed by a team of clapping seals and to watch all the hell it truly brings.

If you think TypeScript should die in a fire then perhaps I'll see all companies using JavaScript in Dante's Inferno.

I don't dislike TS because I love JS so insult it all you like. Besides TS is just a superset of JS so it's still got all of JS's warts. It's just a glorified linter.

I dislike TS because it provides no benefit to me. I already have a type checker, it's called a browser. I dislike TS because a bunch of people who wasted their time learning Java or C# are forcing me to deal with it because they can't do their job without a compiler to tell them how.

You need types, that's your problem, not mine.

It's great that you always write bug free code, but then typescript was not written for you, it was written for the rest of us who write the occasional bug, refactor an API that we didn't realize another developer was using, or can't quite remember the order or shape of args that a library call takes that we only use once every 6 months.

Why don't your tests catch your TypeErrors? You do have tests don't you?

Why would you write a test instead of a type declaration if you had the choice?

TS checks at buildtime. It can't guard against runtime TypeErrors because JavaScript is a dynamic language (despite all the effort to "fix" that). Tests can catch all TypeErrors, TS can't. Why use two tools to do the job that one can do alone?

Tests aren't an alternative to types. They're better together.

I agree that the type checker isn't that useful but I still use TypeScript for two reasons:

1. Accurate autocomplete.

2. Typing my domain models so they play well with autocomplete.

The first thing I do when I install an editor is turn all auto-completion off. Especially the auto-closing brackets. Drives me NUTS!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really curious about the TypeScript hate. Besides some odd type mapping here and there, I've really enjoyed using it over plain old JS.

TypeErrors are just not a problem that I need a compiler to solve for me.

I used to feel that way — and in some situations I still do, like for a short script that I think won’t change much over time. But for a lot of situations I realized that I had so many things to keep track of myself. If there was an easy way for me to be looking back over my shoulder less, like with static typing, I was all for it.

Static typing lets me front-load the effort of making sure many different buggy cases won’t happen. The alternative is for me to think really hard proving to myself that those cases won’t happen each time I come back to the code in the future to add a feature or make a change.

More like front load all the effort of every error that may or may not happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com