There's not much connection. Typescript's record types aren't sound, but that's far from its only source of unsoundness, and sound structural typing is perfectly possible.
Do you have an anecdote (just one!) of a case where TypeScript's lack of type system soundness bit you on a real application? Or an anecdote you can link to from someone else?
The only time an issue ever came up for me was in dealing with arrays
let foo: number[] = [0, 1, 2]
// typed as number but it’s really undefined
let bar = foo[3]
Sure. The usual Java-style variance nonsense is probably the most common source, but I see you're not bothered by that, so the next worst thing is likely object spreading. Here's an anonymized version of something that cropped up in code review earlier this week:
const incomingValue: { name: string, updatedAt: number } = { name: "foo", updatedAt: 0 }
const intermediateValueWithPoorlyChosenSignature: { name: string } = incomingValue
const outgoingValue: { name: string, updatedAt: string } = { updatedAt: new Date().toISOString() , ...intermediateValueWithPoorlyChosenSignature }And yes, TypeScript types are "at least these properties" and not "exactly these properties". That is by design and is frankly one reason why I like TypeScript over Java/C#/Kotlin.
I'd be very interested to know what you'd do to change the type system here to catch this. Are you proposing that types be exact bounds rather than lower bounds on what an object contains?
'{foo :: Int | bar} is a record with a known property 'foo' and some unspecified properties 'bar'. You cannot pass a `{foo :: Int, bar :: Int}` into a function that expects `{foo :: Int}`.
A function that accepts any record with a field foo, changes foo, keeping other properties intact has the type
{foo :: Int | bar} -> {foo :: Int | bar}The issue isn't that it got overridden, it's that it got overridden with a value of the wrong type. An intermediate type signature with `updatedAt` as a key will produce a type error regardless of the type of the corresponding value.
> I'd be very interested to know what you'd do to change the type system here to catch this.
Like the other commenter said, extensible records. Ideally extensible row types, with records, unions, heterogeneous lists, and so on as interpretations, but that seems very unlikely.