Hacker News Reader

the title completely doesnt match the content, this is pure clickbait and logrocket is so shameless about it. i grit my teeth and click but am completely unsurprised at yet another low quality list of arguments that have been rehashed over and over.

here's a less well known, more rigorous study: http://earlbarr.com/publications/typestudy.pdf - To Type or Not to Type: Quantifying Detectable Bugs in JavaScript

View on HN

they mention a time tax of 262 seconds median for TS annotations for their set of 400 bugs. almost 4.5 minutes. so idk, there seems to be some math missing in this paper about the actual trade offs. so maybe you get a 15% improvement in "detectable" bugs found, at a 13.3% time cost (60 minutes /4.5 minutes) per hour of work. worth it...? are your devs expensive? more expensive than QA.

Types are easier to read, reason about and maintain than tests, particularly if it's QA writing the tests instead of engineers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com