Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 23, 2019. It is now read-only.

Consider static types #115

Closed
markfinger opened this issue Jun 19, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Consider static types #115

markfinger opened this issue Jun 19, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@markfinger
Copy link
Owner

Most of the changes currently being considered will probably require rewrites on most of the codebase. Might be a good time to try and slip some static analysis in to get around the refactoring pains and lack of test coverage.

I'm strongly inclined towards TypeScript, primarily because large swathes of the industry seem to be moving towards it, whereas Flow seems to be struggling to break out of React's shadow. Also, I have an inherent distrust for daemon processes (Flow).

@spalger
Copy link
Contributor

spalger commented Jun 21, 2016

I would also suggest Typescript. It has a massive collection of library types, first-class editor integrations, and Typescript 2.0 is coming soon which includes features that have previously set flow apart.

@markfinger
Copy link
Owner Author

markfinger commented Jun 26, 2016

Quickly ran into a number of blocks when attempting to wire in immutable. Only solutions seem to involve a ridiculous amount of boilerplate with getters+setters for every property.

Immutable data structures is something that I feel is much more important for a heavily async system than static types. That being said, this is still worth considering once the story for integrating immutable data and static types has improved.

@markfinger
Copy link
Owner Author

As a small aside, the editor integration (in webstorm, at least) for TS was pretty fantastic. I'd forgotten how handy static types can be :)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants