One job I worked at wouldn't let us do this because it created too large of a QA impact (lol). We were only allowed to modify code in the smallest section possible so that testing could be isolated and go faster.

At another job they mandated that TypeScript wasn't allowed because it "slowed down development". It was soooo laughable. The number of bugs introduced that could have been readily caught was absurd, but management never put the two pieces together.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Typescript only prevents typing bugs... why did they have so many typing bugs?

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Typo'd property names when accessing was the biggest one. Assuming a property was one data type instead of another and not casting or handling it appropriately. Accidentally calling something like it's a method when it isn't.

I ran a bunch of plugins on my end to help with some of that, but many of the older or stubborn devs refused and would refuse anything but, like, vim with no add-ons.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I believe you don’t have to actually use (meaning “compile from”) typescript to profit from it. If you maul the compiler options hard enough, you might get it to analyze JavaScript and provide type checking.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

That's what I did locally.

But a lot of this JavaScript wasn't even transpiled/compiled for prod, just uploaded to a bucket and referenced directly. It was painful.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 months ago

Elderly team mates with the flexibility of concrete, yay!

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 4 months ago

Oof. I guess you can use typescript to make up for lack of IDE but it sounds like you had bigger problems anyway.