`satisfies` is my favorite TypeScript keyword (2024)

2025-11-1816:23205203sjer.red

TIL: `satisfies` is my favorite TypeScript keyword

I’ve been doing a lot of work in TypeScript lately, and with that I’ve spent quite a bit of time learning more about its type system. TypeScript is a wonderfully advanced language though it has an unfortunately steep learning curve; in many ways it’s the complete opposite of Go.

One confusing thing about TypeScript is that it doesn’t always infer the most precise type possible. As an example:

// name is of type "Jerred"
const name = "Jerred";

// person1 is of type { name: string }
const person1 = {
 name: "Jerred",
};

// person2 is of type { readonly name: "Jerred" }
const person2 = {
 name: "Jerred",
} as const;

Why is the name of person1 of type string and not the literal "Jerred"? Because the object could be mutated to contain any other string.

What happens when I want to pass those objects to a function that requires name to be "Jerred"?

function handleJerred(name: "Jerred") {
 // do something
}

// these are okay
handleJerred(name);
handleJerred(person2.name);

handleJerred(person1.name);

As we’d expect, the types don’t match up. The most obvious way is to annotate the variable declaration with the expected type:

const person1: { name: "Jerred" } = {
 name: "Jerred",
};

// okay
handleJerred(person1.name);

We could also use the satisfies keyword. This keyword is a bit esoteric and not very common, but it comes in handy in some scenarios where you’d otherwise pull your hair out.

Here’s a quick example just to show the syntax:

const person1 = {
 name: "Jerred",
} satisfies { name: "Jerred" };

// okay
handleJerred(person1.name);

satisfies is an alternative to an explicit variable type annotation. It tells TypeScript that your assignment should be at least assignable to the provided type. It’s kind of like a type-safe way to cast values.

The benefit of satifies over an variable type annotation is that it lets TypeScript infer a more specific type based on the value provided. Consider this scenario:

type Person = {
 name: string;
 isCool: boolean;
};

function coolPeopleOnly(person: Person & { isCool: true }) {
 // only cool people can enter here
}

const person1: Person = {
 name: "Jerred",
 isCool: true,
};

// okay, so we need to say that `isCool` is true
coolPeopleOnly(person1);
// and we also need to include the name field...
const person2: { isCool: true } = {
 name: "Jerred", isCool: true,
};

const person3: { name: string; isCool: true } = {
 name: "Jerred",
 isCool: true,
};

coolPeopleOnly(person3);

A simpler solution is to use satifies:

const person = {
 name: "Jerred",
 isCool: true,
} satisfies Person;

coolPeopleOnly(person);

TypeScript will ensure that your value is assignable to your type. The type of the assigned variable will be made based on the type of the value instead of the type provided to satisfies.

This really comes in handy when you want to ensure that TypeScript is being as specific as possible.

Read more:


Read the original article

Comments

  • By amake 2025-11-230:316 reply

    99% of my use of `satisfies` is to type-check exhaustivity in `switch` statements:

        type Foo = 'foo' | 'bar';
        
        const myFoo: Foo = 'foo';
        switch (myFoo) {
          case 'foo':
            // do stuff
            break;
          default:
            myFoo satisfies never; // Error here because 'bar' not handled
        }

    • By mckirk 2025-11-232:254 reply

      I generally do this via a `throw UnsupportedValueError(value)`, where the exception constructor only accepts a `never`. That way I have both a compile time check as well as an error at runtime, if anything weird happens and there's an unexpected value.

      • By jstanley 2025-11-237:128 reply

        The fact that there can be runtime type errors that were proven impossible at compile time is why I will never enjoy TypeScript.

        • By eitland 2025-11-239:142 reply

          TypeScript isn't primarily meant to be enjoyed.

          It is meant to be a much better alternative to Javascript while dealing with the fact that the underlying engines use and existing programmers were used to Javascript.

          That said I absolutely enjoy TypeScript, but that might be because I suffered from having to deal with Javascript from 2006 until TypeScript became available.

          • By virtue3 2025-11-239:18

            I have the exact same reason I enjoy typescript - raw dogging js before was an absolute nightmare of testing every single function for every possible value that might be thrown in and being able to handle shit data everywhere.

            god-awful code.

          • By plaguuuuuu 2025-11-2316:13

            As a C# dev, backend typescript is fantastic and the type system is light years ahead of C# in expressivity.

            But the learning curve... no shit.

        • By ownagefool 2025-11-238:272 reply

          Agree wholeheartedly.

          Writing TypeScript is better than JavaScript, but the lack of runtime protection is fairly problematic.

          However, there are libraries such as https://zod.dev, and you can adopt patterns for your interfaces and there's already a large community that does this.

          • By CharlieDigital 2025-11-2313:591 reply

            Zod is quite unpleasant to use, IME, an has some edge cases where you lose code comments.

            From experience, we end up with a mix of both Zod and types and sometimes types that need to be converted to Zod. It's all quite verbose and janky.

            I quite like the approach of Typia (uses build-time inline of JavaScript), but it's not compatible with all build chains and questions abound on its viability post Go refactor.

            • By hermanradtke 2025-11-2314:511 reply

              > we end up with a mix of both Zod and types and sometimes types that need to be converted to Zod

              In my code, everything is a Zod schema and we infer interfaces or types from the schemas. Is there a place where this breaks down?

              • By CharlieDigital 2025-11-2317:42

                Not that I know of aside from code comments (which I like), but I much prefer writing TypeScript to Zod

          • By Degorath 2025-11-2310:46

            Could you please elaborate on "patterns for your interfaces"?

        • By thomasikzelf 2025-11-239:022 reply

          If Typescript is javascript with types bolted on, Rescript is javascript with types the way it should have been. Sound types with low complexity. https://rescript-lang.org/

          • By intellix 2025-11-2312:581 reply

            That syntax is so alien to me as a JS/TS developer. I mean coffeescript was as well until JS slowly introduced it all.

            It would be cruel for me to force ReScript onto the team because they'd all need to reskill. I could only use it for a private project and then hire exclusively for it afterwards

            • By thomasikzelf 2025-11-2315:24

              Really, that is surprising to hear. There are a couple of differences but most of the syntax looks the same to me, what part do you find alien?

              The reskill problem is of similiar difficulty with learning a new framework I think. Especially because the language is rather simple compared to typescript (which is also its strength).

              I do understand it is an uphill battle. The whole nobody get's fired for choosing IBM thing. The language is still unproven in the general perception. I do think that when it comes to libraries and frameworks I see a lot of developers choose new unproven stuff, more then they do languages.

          • By cess11 2025-11-2313:071 reply

            Does this have a relation to Reason/Reason ML?

        • By Defletter 2025-11-237:331 reply

          Isn't that not necessarily out of the ordinary though? What if there's a cosmic ray that change's the value to something not expected by the exhaustive switch? Or more likely, what if an update to a dynamic library adds another value to that enum (or whatever)? What some languages do is add an implicit default case. It's what Java does, at least: https://openjdk.org/jeps/361

          • By jstanley 2025-11-238:392 reply

            > What if there's a cosmic ray that change's the value to something not expected by the exhaustive switch?

            I could forgive that.

            The TypeScript case is more like "what if instead of checking the types we just actually don't check the types?".

            • By tshaddox 2025-11-2314:531 reply

              This is how all static type checking works. What programming language do you have in mind that does static type checking and then also does the same type checking at runtime? And what would you expect this programming language to do at runtime if it finds an unexpected type?

              • By RussianCow 2025-11-2317:21

                I think the point is that other languages make guarantees that ensure you don't have to do any runtime checking. In TypeScript, it's far too easy (and sometimes inevitable) to override the type checker, so some poor function further down into the codebase might get a string when it expects an object, even though there are no type errors.

            • By vips7L 2025-11-2316:55

              Compiler exhaustion is such a useful feature. I can’t believe TS doesn’t have it.

        • By locknitpicker 2025-11-237:481 reply

          > The fact that there can be runtime type errors that were proven impossible at compile time is why I will never enjoy TypeScript.

          The "impossibility" is just a trait of the type definitions and assertions that developers specify. You don't need to use TypeScript to understand that impossibilities written in by developers can and often are very possible.

          • By jstanley 2025-11-238:012 reply

            My first introduction to TypeScript was trying to use it to solve Advent of Code.

            I wrote some code that iterated over lines in a file or something and passed them to a function that took an argument with a numeric type.

            I thought this would be a great test to show the benefits of TypeScript over plain JavaScript: either it would fail to compile, or the strings would become numbers.

            What actually happened was it compiled perfectly fine, but the "numeric" input to my function contained a string!

            I found that to be a gross violation of trust and have never recovered from it.

            EDIT: See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46021640 for examples.

            • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2311:51

              > I thought this would be a great test to show the benefits of TypeScript over plain JavaScript: either it would fail to compile, or the strings would become numbers.

              You're just stressing that you had a fundamental misunderstanding of the language you were using when you first started to use it. This is not a problem with the language. You simply did not understood what you were doing.

              For starters, TypeScript does not change the code you write, it only helps you attach type information to the code you write. The type information you add is there to help the IDE flag potential issues with your code. That's it.

              See how node introduced support for running TypeScript code: it strips out type info, and runs the resulting JavaScript code. That's it.

              If your code was failing to tell you that you were passing strings where you expected numbers, that was a bug in your code. It's a logic error, and a type definition error.

              Static code analysis doesn't change the way you write code. That's your responsibility. Static code analysis adds visibility to the problems you're creating for yourself.

            • By macguillicuddy 2025-11-2310:321 reply

              No tool is perfect. What matters is if a tool is useful. I've found TypeScript to be incredibly useful. Is it possible to construct code that leads to runtime type errors? Yes. Does it go a long way towards reducing runtime type errors? Also yes.

              • By swiftcoder 2025-11-2310:462 reply

                > No tool is perfect. What matters is if a tool is useful

                Some tools are more perfect and more useful than others.

                Typescript's type system is very powerful, but without strict compile-time enforcement you still spend a lot of effort on validating runtime weirdness (that the compiler ought to be able to enforce).

                • By macguillicuddy 2025-11-2311:011 reply

                  Yes that's true, but there's effort to consider on both sides of design decisions like those TypeScript has made. Much of the compile time behaviour comes from the decision for TypeScript to be incremental on top of JavaScript. That allows you to start getting the benefit of TS without the effort of having to rewrite your entire codebase, for example. Having used TS for many years now I feel that the balance it strikes is incredibly productive. Maybe for other folks/projects the tradeoff is different - but for me I would hate going back to plain JS, and there's no alternative available with such tight integration with the rest of the web ecosystem.

                  • By thomasikzelf 2025-11-2311:35

                    Have you seen ReScript? Of course it is not as popular as typescript but it improves on all the bad parts of typescript. You'll get sound types with the pain points of javascript stripped out. Because it compiles to readable javascript you are still in the npm ecosystem.

                    You don't have to rewrite your whole codebase to start using it. It grows horizontally (you add typed files along the way) compared to typescript which grows vertically (you enable it with Any types).

                    The point is that we don't have to move back to plain js. We have learned a lot since typescript was created and I think the time has come to slowly move to a better language (and ReScript feels the most like Javascript in that regard).

                • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2313:221 reply

                  > Typescript's type system is very powerful, but without strict compile-time enforcement you still spend a lot of effort on validating runtime weirdness (that the compiler ought to be able to enforce).

                  That's something that you own and control, though. Just because TypeScript allows developers to gently onboard static type checking by disabling or watering down checks, that does not mean TypeScipt is the reason you spend time validating your own bugs.

                  • By swiftcoder 2025-11-2316:42

                    > Just because TypeScript allows developers... does not mean TypeScipt is the reason you spend time validating your own bugs

                    Unfortunately, taking an ecosystem-wide view, it means exactly that. If one of my dependencies hasn't provided type stubs, or has provided stubs, but then violated their own type signatures in some way, I'm on the hook for the outputs not matching the type annotations.

                    In a strict language, The compiler would assert that the dependency's declared types matched their code, and I'd only be on the hook for type violations in my own code.

        • By Normal_gaussian 2025-11-2312:37

          TypeScript is neither sound nor complete and was defined that way, beating out other competitors that were sound and/or complete.

          What I mean to say is - TypeScript isn't proof.

        • By jaapz 2025-11-239:13

          It's way better than having to write untyped JavaScript though

        • By triyambakam 2025-11-237:331 reply

          That scenario is usually either misuse of escape hatches (especially at API boundaries) or a misunderstanding of what Typescript actually guarantees.

          • By debugnik 2025-11-237:563 reply

            Not really, I provided these examples a couple weeks ago on another HN thread. TypeScript is simply unsound.

            https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/MYewdgzgLgBAllApg...

            https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/DYUwLgBAHgXBB2BXA...

            • By sandblast 2025-11-2312:581 reply

              Aren't these bugs that could be "simply" reported and fixed? Or maybe those would get a label "not a bug" attached by the TS creators for some reason?

              • By debugnik 2025-11-2313:241 reply

                Both are by design. Array covariance is a common design mistake in OOP languages, which the designer of TypeScript had already done for C# but there they at least check it at runtime. And the latter was declared not-a-bug already IIRC.

                TypeScript designers insist they're ok with it being unsound even on the strictest settings. Which I'd be ok with if the remaining type errors were detected at runtime, but they also insist they don't want the type system to add any runtime semantics.

                • By sandblast 2025-11-2314:05

                  "By design", for me, doesn't say that it can't be changed — maybe the design was wrong, after all. Would it be a major hurdle or create some problems if fixed today?

            • By jstanley 2025-11-238:38

              Perfect examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about, thank you.

            • By LordN00b 2025-11-239:374 reply

              In the first example you deliberately create an ambiguous type, when you already know that it's not. You told the compiler you know more than it does. The second is a delegate, that will be triggered at any point during runtime. How can the compiler know what x will be?

              • By debugnik 2025-11-239:46

                First example: you're confusing the annotation for a cast, but it isn't; it won't work the other way around. What you're seeing there is array covariance, an unsound (i.e. broken) subtyping rule for mutable arrays. C# has it too but they've got the decency to check it at runtime.

                Second example: that's the point. If the compiler can't prove that x will be initalised before the call it should reject the code until you make it x: number|undefined, to force the closure to handle the undefined case.

              • By bspammer 2025-11-239:44

                For the first one, the compiler should not allow the mutable list to be assigned to a more broadly typed mutable list. This is a compile error in kotlin, for example

                    val items: MutableList<Int> = mutableListOf(3)
                    val brokenItems: MutableList<Any> = items

              • By swiftcoder 2025-11-2310:49

                > The second is a delegate, that will be triggered at any point during runtime. How can the compiler know what x will be?

                x is clearly defined to be a number. The compiler should produce an error if the delegate captures x before it has a value assigned.

              • By jstanley 2025-11-239:411 reply

                If it only works when you write the types correctly with no mistakes, what's the point? I thought the point of all this strong typing stuff was to detect mistakes.

                • By macguillicuddy 2025-11-2310:40

                  Because adding types adds constraints across the codebase that detect a broader set of mistakes. It's like saying what's the point of putting seatbelts into a car if they only work when you're wearing them - yes you can use them wrong (perhaps even unknowingly), but the overall benefit is much greater. On balance I find that TypeScript gives me huge benefit.

      • By Klaster_1 2025-11-237:31

        Same here, you can also use the same function in switch cases in Angular templates for the same purpose. Had no idea you could achieve similar with `satisfies`, cool trick.

      • By mquander 2025-11-233:32

        That's great, I'm going to use that one in the future.

      • By rezonant 2025-11-233:551 reply

        That's very clever!

        • By mrlowlevel 2025-11-2315:51

          We have this nifty util in our codebase:

          ```ts

          /*

          * A function that asserts that a value is never.

          * Useful for exhaustiveness checks in switch statements.

          */

          export function assertNever(x: never): never {

            // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/restrict-template-expressions
          
            throw new Error(`Unexpected object: ${x}`)
          
          }

          ```

    • By your_fin 2025-11-238:06

      I would highly recommend the ts-pattern [1] library if you find yourself wanting exhaustive switch statements! The syntax is a bit noiser than case statements in simple cases, but I find it less awkward for exhaustive pattern matching and much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with. Once you get familiar with it, it can trim down a /lot/ of more complicated logic too.

      It also makes match expressions an expression rather than a statement, so it can replace awkward terenaries. And it has no transitive dependencies!

      [1]: https://github.com/gvergnaud/ts-pattern

    • By ervine 2025-11-230:46

      https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/switch-exhaustiveness-che... if that is something you're not aware of!

    • By inlined 2025-11-230:372 reply

      Nice. I didn’t know I can now replace my “assertExhaustive” function.

      Previously you could define a function that accepted never and throws. It tells the compiler that you expect the code path to be exhaustive and fixes any return value expected errors. If the type is changed so that it’s no longer exhaustive it will fail to compile and (still better than satisfies) if an invalid value is passed at runtime it will throw.

      • By preommr 2025-11-230:43

        I thought the same thing. I also have an assert function I pull in everywhere, and this trick seemed like it would be cleaner (especially for one-off scripts to reduce deps).

        But unfortunately, using a default clause creates a branching condition that then treats the entire switch block as non-exhaustive, even though it is technically exhaustive over the switch target. It still requires something like throwing an exception, which at that point you might as well do 'const x: never = myFoo'.

      • By nikeee 2025-11-2311:06

        I still keep my assertNever function because it will handle non-exhaustiveness at runtime.

    • By Normal_gaussian 2025-11-2312:42

      This is what I do:

         class AbsurdError extends Error {
           constructor(public value: unknown, message: string) {
             super(message);
             this.name = 'AbsurdError';
           }
         }
         
         function absurd(value: never, message: string) {
           throw new AbsurdError(value, message);
         }
      
      Including an error message and an error type helps if one does slip through to runtime. Additionally, the AbsurdError can be caught and escalated appropriately. And finally the absurd function can be used in an inline ternary etc. where alternatives like throw cannot.

    • By klinch 2025-11-239:07

      TIL.

  • By frou_dh 2025-11-2321:20

    The contrived example used in the first half of the post is offputting. Why would you have a function of 1 argument that only accepts a string with a specific value? There's no point passing an argument then - it might as well be a constant inside the function.

  • By epolanski 2025-11-2221:3620 reply

    > TypeScript is a wonderfully advanced language though it has an unfortunately steep learning curve

    An extremely steep one.

    The average multi-year TypeScript developer I meet can barely write a basic utility type, let alone has any general (non TypeScript related) notion of cardinality or sub typing. Hell, ask someone to write a signature for array flat, you'd be surprised how many would fail.

    Too many really stop at the very basics.

    And even though I consider myself okay at TypeScript, the gap with the more skilled of my colleagues is still impressively huge.

    I think there's a dual problem, on one side type-level programming isn't taken seriously by the average dev, and is generally not nurtured.

    On the other hand, the amount of ideas, theory, and even worse implementation details of the TypeScript compiler are far from negligible.

    Oh, and it really doesn't help that TypeScript is insanely verbose, this can easily balloon when your signatures have multiple type dependencies (think composing functions that can have different outputs and different failures).

    • By pcthrowaway 2025-11-2222:455 reply

      > Hell, ask someone to write a signature for array flat, you'd be surprised how many would fail.

      To be clear, an array flat type:

          type FlatArr<Arg extends unknown[]> = Arg extends [infer First, ...(infer Rest)] ?
            First extends unknown[] ?
              [...First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
              [First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
            [];
      
      is far from basic Typescript. The average Typescript dev likely doesn't need to understand recursive conditional types. It's a level of typescript one typically only needs for library development.

      Not only have I never been expected to write something like this for actual work, I'm not sure it's been useful when I have, since most of my colleagues consider something like this nerd sniping and avoid touching/using such utilities, even with documentation.

      • By wk_end 2025-11-2222:587 reply

        If I saw that in a PR I would push very hard to reject; something like that is a maintenance burden that probably isn’t worth the cost, and I’ve been the most hardcore about types and TypeScript of anyone of any team I’ve been on in the past decade or so.

        Now, that said, I probably would want to be friends with that dev. Unless they had an AI generate it, in which case the sin is doubled.

        • By probabletrain 2025-11-2223:53

          I think there’s a difference between what’s expected/acceptable for library code vs application code. Types like this might be hard to understand, but they create very pleasant APIs for library consumers. I’ve generally found it very rare that I’ve felt the need to reach for more complex types like this in application code, however.

          RXJS’s pipe function has a pretty complex type for its signature, but as a user of the library it ‘just works’ in exactly the type-safe way I’d expect, without me having to understand the complexity of the type.

        • By swiftcoder 2025-11-2310:551 reply

          > If I saw that in a PR I would push very hard to reject; something like that is a maintenance burden that probably isn’t worth the cost

          As someone who came from a CS background, this kind of attitude is deeply mysterious. That seems like a type expression I'd expect a CS undergrad to be able to write - certainly if an SDE with 1-2 years experience was confused by it, I'd be advocating against their further promotion.

          • By shortrounddev2 2025-11-2312:422 reply

            The every day practice of software engineering has little to do with the academic discipline of computer science. What makes a good software engineer is not usually the same thing that makes a good CS major

            • By swiftcoder 2025-11-2316:38

              Sure, but basic CS knowledge is an expectation in much of the software field (albeit less since the mid-2010's javascript boom). A lot of companies aren't going to hire you if you don't know the basics of data structures and algorithms

            • By plaguuuuuu 2025-11-2316:211 reply

              but then you wind up with an entire repo, or an entire engineering team utterly hobbled by a lack of expressive typing (or advanced concepts generally) and debased by the inelegance of basic bitch programming.

              • By FlyingAvatar 2025-11-2318:41

                Disclaimer: I'm not the OP, and there are certainly places where using recursive type definitions is justified.

                My interpretation of OP's point is that excessive complexity can be a "code smell" on its own. You want to use the solution to match the complexity of the job and both the team that is building it and the one that is likely to maintain it.

                As amused as I am by the idea of a dev team being debased by the inelegance of basic bitch programming, the daily reality of the majority of software development in industry is "basic bitch" teams working on "basic bitch" problems. I would argue this is a significant reason why software development roles are so much at risk of being replaced by AI.

                To me, it's similar to the choice one has as they improve their vocabulary. Knowing and using more esoteric words might allow adding nuance to ideas, but it also risks excluding others from understanding them or more wastefully can be used as intelligence signalling more than useful communication.

                tldr: Complexity is important when it's required, but possibly detrimental when it's not.

        • By pjerem 2025-11-238:261 reply

          I’d say it depends. I always advocate for code that is easy to read and to understand, but in extremely rare conditions, hard to read code is the better solution.

          Especially when it comes to signatures in Typescript, complex signatures can be used to create simple and ergonomic APIs.

          But anyway you shouldn’t be allowed to push anything like this without multiple lines of comments documenting the thing. Unreadable code can be balanced with good documentation but I rarely saw this unfortunately.

          • By chuckadams 2025-11-2312:18

            Comments and tests. Vitest supports unit tests for types.

        • By ibejoeb 2025-11-230:041 reply

          If it's correct, it's not a maintenance nightmare, and it will alert you to problems later when someone wants to use it incorrectly.

          If you're writing first-party software, it probably doesn't matter. But if you have consumers, it's important. The compiler will tell you what's wrong all downstream from there unless someone explicitly works around it. That's the one you want to reject.

          • By locknitpicker 2025-11-237:581 reply

            > If it's correct, it's not a maintenance nightmare, and it will alert you to problems later when someone wants to use it incorrectly.

            You're confusing things. It is a maintenance nightmare because it is your job to ensure it is correct and remains correct in spite of changes. You are the one owning that mess and held accountable for it.

            > If you're writing first-party software, it probably doesn't matter. But if you have consumers, it's important.

            Yes, it is important that you write correct and usable code. That code doesn't fall on your lap though and you need to be the one writing and maintaining it. Whoever feels compelled to write unintelligible character soup that makes even experienced seasoned devs pause and focus is failing their job as a software engineer.

            • By ibejoeb 2025-11-2316:541 reply

              > Whoever feels compelled to write unintelligible character soup...

              I see it differently. That's the name of the game. Language design is always striving toward making it more intelligible, but it is reasonable to expect pros to have command of the language.

              • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2317:351 reply

                > I see it differently. That's the name of the game. Language design is always striving toward making it more intelligible, but it is reasonable to expect pros to have command of the language.

                No, that's an extremely naive and clueless opinion to have. Any basic book on software engineering will tell you in many, many ways that the goal of any software engineer is to write simple code that is trivial to parse, understand, and maintain, and writing arcane and overly complex code is the Hallmark of an incompetent developer. The goal of a software engineer is to continuously fight complexity and keep things as simple as they can be. Just because someone can write cryptic, unintelligible code that doesn't make them smart or clever: it only makes them bad at their job.

                • By ibejoeb 2025-11-2320:06

                  I see where you're coming from. Do you think some of these books could help obviate some of my naivete and cluelessness?

        • By 8note 2025-11-2223:05

          looking back at them is also real hard to debug. you dont get a particularly nice error message, and a comment or a test would tell better than the type what the thing should be looking like

        • By spankalee 2025-11-230:022 reply

          What's the alternative? Have incorrect types for the function? That's not better.

          • By epolanski 2025-11-230:49

            The alternative is what shows in the comment: go on HN and tell the world you think TS and JS are crap and it's not worth your time, while writing poor software.

          • By wk_end 2025-11-230:521 reply

            To answer this we probably need more details, otherwise it's gonna be an XY Problem. What is it that I'm trying to do? How would I type this function in, say, SML, which isn't going to allow incorrect types but also doesn't allow these kinds of type gymnastics?

            • By spankalee 2025-11-231:311 reply

              We don't have to deal in hypotheticals - we have a concrete example here. There's a method, array.flat() that does a thing that we can correctly describe in TypeScript's type system.

              You say you would reject those correct types, but for what alternative?

              It's hugely beneficial to library users to automatically get correctly type return values from functions without having to do error-prone casts. I would always take on the burden of correct types on the library side to improve the dev experience and reduce the risk of bugs on the library-consumption side.

              • By wk_end 2025-11-232:095 reply

                There's nothing I can do about the standard JavaScript library, but in terms of code I have influence over, I very simply would not write a difficult-to-type method like Array.prototype.flat(), if I could help it. That's what I mean by an XY Problem - why are we writing this difficult-to-type method in the first place and what can we do instead?

                Let's suppose Array.prototype.flat() wasn't in the standard library, which is why I'm reviewing a PR with this gnarly type in it. If I went and asked you why you needed this, I guess you'd say the answer is: "because JavaScript lets me make heterogenous arrays, which lets me freely intermix elements and arrays and arrays of arrays and... in my arrays, and I'm doing that for something tree-like but also need to get an array of each element in the structure". To which I'd say something like "stop doing that, this isn't Lisp, define an actual data type for these things". Suddenly this typing problem goes away, because the type of your "flatten" method is just "MyStructure -> [MyElements]".

                • By pcthrowaway 2025-11-233:06

                  Sure, if you're living fully in your own application code, and you don't need to consume things from an API you don't control, it's easy to live in a walled garden of type purity.

                  I can recognize that most people are going to go for inaccurate types when fancier semantics are necessary to consume things from the network.

                  But we also have the real world where libraries are used by both JS devs and TS devs, and if we want to offer semantics that idiomatic for JS users (such as Array.prototype.flat()) while also providing a first-class experience to TS consumers, it is often valuable to have this higher-level aptitude with the TS type system.

                  As mentioned earlier, I believe 90% of TS devs are never in this position, or it's infrequent enough that they're not motivated to learn higher-level type mechanics. But I also disagree with the suggestion that such types should be avoided because you can always refactor your interface to provide structure that allows you to avoid them; You don't always control the shape of objects which permeate software boundaries, and when providing library-level code, the developer experience of the consumer is often prioritized, which often means providing a more flexible API that can only be properly typed with more complex types.

                • By kaoD 2025-11-238:40

                  > Suddenly this typing problem goes away, because the type of your "flatten" method is just "MyStructure -> [MyElements]".

                  How is that less maintenance burden than a simple Flatten type? Now you have to construct and likely unwrap the types as needed.

                  And how will you ensure that you're flattening your unneeded type anyways? Sure you can remove the generics for a concrete type but that won't simplify the type.

                  It's simple. It's just recursive flattening an array in 4 lines. Unlikely to ever change, unlike the 638255 types that you'd have to introduce and maintain for no reason.

                  There are many reasons not to do that. Say your business logic changes and your type no longer needs one of the alternatives: you are unlikely to notice because it will typecheck even if never constructed and you will have to deal with that unused code path until you realize it's unused (if you ever do).

                  You made code harder to maintain and more complex for some misguided sense of simplicity.

                • By ffsm8 2025-11-234:302 reply

                  > MyStructure -> [MyElements]

                  Right, from the structure you get an array with one element which is likely an union type from that naming.

                  Honestly, you sound more like your arguing from the perspective of a person unwilling to learn new things, considering you couldn't even get that type correct.

                  To begin with, that flat signature wasn't even hard to understand?

                  • By wk_end 2025-11-235:08

                    What I wrote would be a syntax error in TypeScript (no name for the argument, wrong arrow), not a function that returns array with one element; I used Haskell-ish notation instead of TypeScript's more verbose "(structure: MyStructure) => MyElement[]".

                    I thought it was clear enough that I was being informal and what I meant was clear, but that was admittedly probably a mistake. But to infer an implication from that that I'm "unwilling to learn new things" is a non sequitur and honestly kind of an unnecessarily dickish accusation.

                  • By lovich 2025-11-235:08

                    Brah, If you have a type with that many characters in it that isn’t a super long string name, it’s not easy to understand unless you are the 1% of 1% when it comes to interpreting this specific language.

                    On top of that I fully agree with the poster you’re responding to. In general application code that’s and extremely complicated type, generally done by someone being as clever as can be. And if the code you’ve written when you’re being as clever as possible has a bug in it, you won’t be clever enough to debug it.

                • By geoffmanning 2025-11-232:37

                  This. 1000%.

      • By epolanski 2025-11-230:432 reply

        The version I was thinking when I wrote the comment is simpler

            type Flatten<T> = T extends Array<infer U> ? Flatten<U> : T
        
        > The average Typescript dev likely doesn't need to understand recursive conditional types.

        The average X dev in Y language doesn't need to understand Z is a poor argument in the context of writing better software.

        • By furyofantares 2025-11-232:00

          > The average X dev in Y language doesn't need to understand Z is a poor argument in the context of writing better software.

          It's a good response to the claim that we'd be surprised at how many would fail to do this, though.

        • By NooneAtAll3 2025-11-231:203 reply

          as a person that never touched JS and TS... what's the difference between the two answers?

          • By granzymes 2025-11-231:40

            For one, the simple answer is incomplete. It gives the fully unwrapped type of the array but you still need something like

              type FlatArray<T extends unknown[]> = Flatten<T[number]>[]
            
            The main difference is that the first, rest logic in the complex version lets you maintain information TypeScript has about the length/positional types of the array. After flattening a 3-tuple of a number, boolean, and string array TypeScript can remember that the first index is a number, the second index is a boolean, and the remaining indices are strings. The second version of the type will give each index the type number | boolean | string.

          • By ameliaquining 2025-11-231:35

            First one flattens a potentially-nested tuple type. E.g., FlatArr<[number, [boolean, string]]> is [number, boolean, string].

            Second one gets the element type of a potentially-nested array type. E.g., Flatten<number[][]> is number.

            For what it's worth, I've never needed to use either of these, though I've occasionally had other uses for slightly fancy TypeScript type magic.

          • By pcthrowaway 2025-11-236:32

            The answer above actually gets the type union of all non-array elements of a multi-level array.

            In other words

                Flatten<[1,[2,'a',['b']]]>
            
            will give you a union type of 1, 2, 'a', and 'b'

                const foo: Flatten<[1,[2,'a',['b']]]> = 'b'; // OK
                const bar: Flatten<[1,[2,'a',['b']]]> = 'c'; // Error: Type '"c"' is not assignable to type '1 | 2 | "a" | "b"'
            
            Technically the inference is unnecessary there, if that's you're goal:

                 type Flatten<T> = T extends Array<unknown> ? Flatten<T[number]> : T
            
            I don't really consider this the type of flattening an array, but `Array<Flatten<ArrType>>` would be. And this would actually be comparable to the builtin Array.prototype.flat type signature with infinite depth (you can see the typedef for that here[1], but this is the highest level of typescript sorcery)

            My solution was for flattening an array with a depth of 1 (most people using Array.prototype.flat are using this default depth I'd wager):

                console.log(JSON.stringify([1,[2, [3]]].flat()));
                > [1,2,[3]]
            
            The type I provided would match those semantics:

                // 'readonly' added to the 'extends' sections to work on "as const" (readonly) arrays
                type FlatArr<Arg extends unknown[] | readonly unknown[]> = Arg extends readonly [infer First, ...(infer Rest)] ?
                  First extends readonly unknown[] ?
                    [...First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
                    [First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
                  [];
            
                const flatten = <Arr extends unknown[] | readonly unknown[]>(arr: Arr): FlatArr<Arr> => arr.flat() as FlatArr<Arr>
                const someArr = [1,[2,'a',['b', ['c']]]] as const; // const someArr: readonly [1, readonly [2, "a", readonly ["b", readonly ["c"]]]]
                const someArr2 = flatten(someArr);                 // const someArr2: [1, 2, "a", readonly ["b", readonly ["c"]]]
            
                
            
            [1]: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/main/src/lib/es...

      • By chrismorgan 2025-11-2313:54

        Here’s the fun part that I suspect many here are forgetting: if you want to write the function body, it will probably (or at the very least can) look very similar!

          function flat() {                        // type FlatArr<Arg extends unknown[]> =
              let [first, ...rest] = this;
              return (this.length > 0) ?           // Arg extends [infer First, ...(infer Rest)] ?
                  Array.isArray(first) ?           //   First extends unknown[] ?
                      [...first, ...flat(rest)] :  //     [...First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
                      [first, ...flat(rest)] :     //     [First, ...FlatArr<Rest>] :
                  [];                              //   [];
          }
        
        If you want to unternarise it:

          function flat() {
              if (this.length > 0) {
                  let [first, ...rest] = this;
                  if (Array.isArray(first)) {
                      return [...first, ...flat(rest)];
                  } else {
                      return [first, ...flat(rest)];
                  }
              } else {
                  return [];
              }
          }
        
        I still wouldn’t call it basic TypeScript, but it’s not conceptually that advanced, you just need to know about infer and extends.

        Now in reality, Array.prototype.flat has a more complex definition, partly because (like most of Array’s methods) the method is generic (it works on array-like objects that have a length property and numeric indexing), and partly because of the depth parameter. From lib.es2019.array.d.ts:

          type FlatArray<Arr, Depth extends number> = {
              done: Arr;
              recur: Arr extends ReadonlyArray<infer InnerArr> ? FlatArray<InnerArr, [-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20][Depth]>
                  : Arr;
          }[Depth extends -1 ? "done" : "recur"];
        
          interface ReadonlyArray<T> {
              // [Snipped: flatMap, and flat’s doc comment]
              flat<A, D extends number = 1>(
                  this: A,
                  depth?: D,
              ): FlatArray<A, D>[];
          }
        
          // [And repeated for interface Array<T>.]
        
        Ouch. Don’t like the { done, recur }[Depth extends -1 ? "done" : "recur"] at all, no idea why it wasn’t written as `Depth extends -1 ? Arr : Arr extends ReadonlyArray<…`. And as for hard-coding support for depths up to 20 then bailing… probably pragmatic, it’s possible to support all values, but rather messy: https://stackoverflow.com/q/54243431.

      • By miki123211 2025-11-2223:432 reply

        I recently had to write a Promise.all, but using an object instead of an array.

        That was... non-trivial.

        • By hdjrudni 2025-11-230:201 reply

          If it's what I'm thinking, that one isn't too bad. I wrote it awhile back:

              export async function promiseAll<T extends Record<string, Promise<any>>>(promises: T): Promise<{ [K in keyof T]: Awaited<T[K]> }> {
                  const keys = Object.keys(promises) as Array<keyof T>;
                  const result = await Promise.all(keys.map(key => promises[key]));
                  return Object.fromEntries(result.map((value, i) => [keys[i], value])) as { [K in keyof T]: Awaited<T[K]> };

          • By atsjie 2025-11-237:34

            I'd call that bad pretty bad.

            Without internet or AI I wouldn't attempt writing anything like that.

      • By kaoD 2025-11-2223:121 reply

        For those unfamiliar with TS, the above is just...

            function flat([head, ...tail]) {
              return Array.isArray(head)
                ? [...flat(head), ...flat(tail)]
                : [head, ...flat(tail)]
            }
        
        ...in TS syntax.

        • By tomsmeding 2025-11-2223:371 reply

          Well, it is the type of that, in TS syntax. Few are the statically-typed languages that can even express that type.

          • By not_kurt_godel 2025-11-234:022 reply

            Java: List<Object>

            Python: list[Any]

            ...what am I missing?

            • By rjh29 2025-11-237:49

              You're missing the specialisation of Object/Any. For example Array.flat called with [int, [bool, string]] returns a type [int, bool, string]. Admittedly this is somewhat niche, but most other languages can't express this - the type information gets erased.

            • By sli 2025-11-237:03

              You're missing the input type, essentially. Those are just array types. The TypeScript type signature more of a function type, it expresses flattening a n-dimensional array (input type) into a flat array (output type).

    • By afavour 2025-11-2222:231 reply

      > Too many really stop at the very basics.

      I don’t think that means it has a steep learning curve. It just means the basics suffice for a ton of TypeScript deployments. Which I personally don’t see as the end of the world.

      • By vosper 2025-11-2222:32

        Yes, to me this is a biggest feature of Typescript: A little goes a long way, while the advanced features make really cool things possible. I tend to think of there being two kinds of Typescript - Application Typescript (aka The Basics, `type`, `interface`, `Record`, unions etc...) and Library Typescript which is the stuff that eg Zod or Prisma does to give the Application Typescript users awesome features.

        While I aspire to Library TS levels of skill, I am really only a bit past App TS myself.

        On that note I've been meaning to the the Type-Level Typescript course [0]. Has anyone taken it?

        https://type-level-typescript.com/

    • By madeofpalk 2025-11-2223:172 reply

      > Too many really stop at the very basics.

      As someone who knows slightly more than the basics, and enough to know about the advanced stuff that I don't know about, this is the correct place to stop.

      I would much rather restructure my javascript than do typescript gymnastics to fit it into the type system.

      • By IshKebab 2025-11-239:03

        I agree. The advanced stuff mostly exists in order to allow writing type annotations for JavaScript libraries that have APIs that are very dynamic.

        If you're purely writing Typescript then you mostly don't need it.

      • By IceDane 2025-11-2223:361 reply

        [flagged]

        • By ervine 2025-11-230:08

          You can restructure your JS to avoid some crazy verbose TS though, sometimes. I think that's the point they were making. Why be so hostile?

    • By mook 2025-11-232:331 reply

      It's also terribly documented. As an example, I don't think `satisfies` is in the docs outside of release notes. There's lots more stuff like that, which makes using it kind of frustrating.

    • By knallfrosch 2025-11-236:58

      Typescript types often devolve into

      keyof typeof[number] ? uppercase (myNum)

      On the other hand, there isn't much Omit, readonly, mutable in existing code bases, so devs have nowhere to learn but documentation.

      Then the ground shifts again and –what should be basic stuff – enums are banned, because erasableSyntaxOnly makes life so much easier.

    • By SkyPuncher 2025-11-2319:34

      I stopped doing anything advance because I realized nobody actually wanted to do all of the advanced stuff. None of the NPM community does anything more than the basics.

      Frankly, I prefer it that way. A lot of the advance stuff doesn’t actually enable any new functionality. It only shortens the code paths for implementing.

    • By Exoristos 2025-11-237:291 reply

      "There basics," well understood and judiciously applied, is where the bulk of TypeScript's value lies.

      • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2310:30

        > "There basics," well understood and judiciously applied, is where the bulk of TypeScript's value lies.

        Yes, precisely. OP is also completely oblivious to the fact that TypeScript is designed to help developers gradually onboard legacy JavaScript projects and components, which definitely don't require arcane and convoluted type definitions to add value.

    • By stefan_ 2025-11-2223:59

      This is the bell curve meme, and you are in the middle telling us "template metaprogramming in C++ is amazing".

    • By undeveloper 2025-11-2221:50

      these are things most developers don't know how to do in most language's type systems. I think only rust with its focus on functional roots has seen similar focus on utilizing its type system to its fullest extent.

    • By locknitpicker 2025-11-237:53

      > The average multi-year TypeScript developer I meet can barely write a basic utility type, let alone has any general (non TypeScript related) notion of cardinality or sub typing. Hell, ask someone to write a signature for array flat, you'd be surprised how many would fail.

      I think you're both exaggerating your blanket accusations of incompetence and confusing learning curve with mastering extremely niche techniques akin to language gotchas.

    • By baxuz 2025-11-2318:00

      Being a JS/TS one-trick pony all my career, how does it compare to other languages? I don't really see much difference, except if comparing with some C++ shenanigans.

    • By mohas 2025-11-235:32

      to our defense, we want to build stuff not become ts wizards. also I've worked with libraries with heavy heavy typing that it was a nightmare if you wanted to use their lib in any other way than what they have imagined.

    • By imiric 2025-11-2223:501 reply

      You're right, but that begs the question: does a type system really require such complexity?

      I'm aware that type theory is a field in and of itself, with a lot of history and breadth, but do developers really need deep levels of type flexibility for a language to be useful and for the compiler to be helpful?

      I think TypeScript encourages "overtyping" to the detriment of legibility and comprehension, even though it is technically gradually typed. Because it is so advanced and Turing complete itself, a lot of brain cycles and discussion is spent on implementing and understanding type definitions. And you're definitely right that it being verbose also doesn't help.

      So it's always a bittersweet experience using it. On one hand it's great that we have mostly moved on from dynamically typed JavaScript, but on the other, I wish we had settled on a saner preprocessor / compiler / type system.

      • By rjh29 2025-11-237:511 reply

        The idea is to make libraries preserve as much type information as possible, as a principle. Once type information is erased it can't be restored. For regular application code you don't need to use those features.

        • By imiric 2025-11-239:171 reply

          But regular application code also contains libraries. Type information is useful even if you're the only user of those APIs.

          My point was more related to the level of expressiveness required of a type system in order to allow a programmer to produce reliable code without getting in their way. I think TypeScript leans more towards cumbersome than useful.

          For example, I'm more familiar with Go's type system, which is on the other side of that scale. It is certainly much less expressive and powerful than TypeScript, and I have found it frustrating and limiting in many ways, but in most day-to-day scenarios it's reasonably adequate. Are Go programs inherently worse off than TypeScript programs? Does a Go programmer have a worse experience overall? I would say: no.

          • By rjh29 2025-11-2319:18

            They're completely different languages, Javascript is dynamically typed, not sure how useful such a comparison is. TS's type system evolved out of a desire to encode the type relations of JS functions, often native ones, which are very dynamic and polymorphic. When writing application code you can keep things simple, but trying to represent all the ways types can change for the native libraries is harder.

    • By lloydatkinson 2025-11-2221:544 reply

      TypeScript codebases I've seen generally seem to have the widest demonstration of skill gap versus other languages I use.

      For example, I don't ever see anyone using `dynamic` or `object` in C#, but I will often see less skilled developers using `any` and `// @ts-ignore` in TypeScript at every possible opportunity even if it's making their development experience categorically worse.

      For these developers, the `type` keyword is totally unknown. They don't know how to make a type, or what `Omit` is, or how to extend a type. Hell, they usually don't even know what a union is. Or generics.

      I sometimes think that in trying to just be a superset of JavaScript, and it being constantly advertised as so, TypeScript does not/did not get taken seriously enough as a standalone language because it's far too simple to just slot sloppy JavaScript into TypeScript. TypeScript seems a lot better now of having a more sane tsconfig.json, but it still isn't strict enough by default.

      This is a strong contrast with other languages that compile to JavaScript, like https://rescript-lang.org/ which has an example of pattern matching right there on the home page.

      Which brings me onto another aspect I don't really like about TypeScript; it's constantly own-goaling itself because of it's "we don't add anything except syntax and types" philosophy. I don't think TypeScript will ever get pattern matching as a result, which is absurd, because it has unions.

      • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2310:491 reply

        > For example, I don't ever see anyone using `dynamic` or `object` in C#, but I will often see less skilled developers using `any` and `// @ts-ignore` in TypeScript at every possible opportunity even if it's making their development experience categorically worse.

        I think you're confusing things that aren't even comparable. The primary reason TypeScript developers use the likes of `any` is because a) TypeScript focuses on adding support for static type checking on a language that does not support it instead of actually defining the underlying types, b) TypeScript developers mostly focus on onboarding and integrating TypeScript onto projects and components that don't support it, b) TypeScript developers are paid to deliver working projects, not vague and arbitrary type correctness goals. Hence TypeScript developers tend to use `any` in third party components, add user-defined type guards to introduce typing in critical areas, and iterate over type definitions when time allows.

        • By lloydatkinson 2025-11-2319:48

          I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote entirely.

      • By ervine 2025-11-2223:35

        On the other hand, would we even be talking about it if it hadn't stuck to its goals?

      • By fourthark 2025-11-230:021 reply

        It will get pattern matching when JS does. Not certain yet but in progress.

        https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching

        • By ibejoeb 2025-11-230:131 reply

          That proposal is really dragging though. And typescript needs as much work because that's where the real power is. We need discern thing like

              match (x) {
                "bob": ...,
                string: ...,
                () => Promise<void>: ...,
                () => Promise<string>: ...,
              }
          
          with exhaustiveness checking for it to be truly useful.

          • By ameliaquining 2025-11-231:461 reply

            Discriminating a function or promise based on return type is never going to work, because JavaScript is dynamically typed and TypeScript erases types at compile time, so there's no way to know at runtime what type a function or promise is going to return.

            • By ibejoeb 2025-11-2316:48

              It'll work because that's what typescript does, and that's why it needs to be implemented there, also. That's my point.

              And as far as runtime goes, well, that's not what typescript does. It's a typical compile-time static type system.

              Typescript aside, even a javascript-level first-class pattern expression is still extremely useful. I really hope it gets in there soon.

      • By rtz121 2025-11-2313:021 reply

        > For example, I don't ever see anyone using `dynamic` or `object` in C#

        I have bad news for you

        • By lloydatkinson 2025-11-2319:48

          Is your bad news that you primarily have to work in bad codebases? If so, sorry to hear that.

    • By cynicalcoder 2025-11-233:30

      >And even though I consider myself okay at TypeScript, the gap with the more skilled of my colleagues is still impressively huge.

      Maybe they're smart, but the even smarter dev would avoid unnecessary complexity in the first place.

    • By monkpit 2025-11-231:441 reply

      > ask someone to write a signature for array flat

      Out of curiosity - what do you think is a satisfactory answer here?

      My answer would vary wildly based upon more details, but at the most basic all I can think you could guarantee is Array<unknown> => Array<unknown>?

      • By epolanski 2025-11-2313:35

        In an interview I'd be happy just seeing some reasoning.

        IRL I'd be happy with someone at least searching for a definition and trying to learn from it.

        I've asked this question multiple times as implementing array flatten used to be our go to ice breaker question, and many devs had no issues reasoning and finding an okay type definition.

    • By paulddraper 2025-11-234:28

      Not steep so much as deep.

      There’s a lot you can do in TypeScript. But you don’t have to do it. And TS existed successfully a long time without those features.

    • By ForHackernews 2025-11-2222:032 reply

      Honestly I just use TypeScript to prevent `1 + [] == "1"` and check that functions are called with arguments. I don't care about type theory at all and the whole thing strikes me as programmers larping (poorly) as mathematicians.

      • By epolanski 2025-11-2222:272 reply

        I couldn't care less about mathematics, but I do care about making impossible state impossible and types documenting the domain.

        If you type some state as:

            isLoading: boolean
            result: Foo
            hasError: boolean
            errorMessage: string | null
        
        then you're creating a giant mess of a soup where the state of your program could have a result, be loading and an error at the same time. If you could recognise that the state of your program is a sum of possible states (loading | success | error), and not their product as the type above you could highly simplify your code, add more invariants and reduce the number of bugs.

        And that is a very simple and basic example, you can go *much* further, as in encoding that some type isn't merely a number through branded types, but a special type of number, be it a positive number between 2 and 200 or, being $ or celsius and avoiding again and entire class of bugs by treating everybody just as an integer or float.

        • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-236:142 reply

          You can encode that "correctly" in pure JS

             class LoadingState extends State {}
             class ResultState extends State {}
             class ErrorState extends State {}
             const state: State = new LoadingState
          
          Generally it's a bad pattern to have dependant fields like your example, but you don't need TS to solve it.

          • By epolanski 2025-11-2313:36

            Of course you can do it in JS too.

            But you can't reason on the different cases aided by the type checker.

            Also, using classes or POJOs is merely an implementation detail.

          • By rtz121 2025-11-2313:04

            Thats OOP, we don't do that anymore!!! /s

        • By what 2025-11-235:122 reply

          >encoding that a number is between 2 and 200

          What’s the point of this level of autism when you still have to add run time checks?

          • By kennywinker 2025-11-235:561 reply

            For a function setVelocity() that can accept 1..<200. You call it with numbers that you enter directly and types tell you something that would otherwise be a comment on the function, or you do runtime checks elsewhere, and the type becomes proof that you checked them before handing it into the function.

            Btw, using “autism” to mean “pedantry” leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe you could reconsider using it that way in the future.

            • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-236:112 reply

              Pushing everything to types like this creates a different burden where you're casting between types all over the place just to use the same underlying data. You could just clamp velocity to 200 in the callee and save all that hassle.

              • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2316:251 reply

                > Pushing everything to types like this creates a different burden where you're casting between types all over the place just to use the same underlying data.

                TypeScript does not perform any kind of casting at all. What TypeScript supports is structural typing, which boils down to allowing developers to specify type hints in a way that allows the TypeScript compiler to determine which properties or invariants are met in specific code paths.

                Literal types address a very common and very mundane use case: assert what can and cannot be done with an object depending on what value one of it's fields have.

                Take for example authorization headers. When they are set, their prefix tells you which authorization scheme is being used by clients. With typescript you can express those strings as a prefix constrained string type, and use them to have the TypeScript compiler prevent you from accidentally pass bearer tokens to the function that handles basic authentication.

                Literal types shine when you are using them to specify discriminant fields in different types. Say for example you have a JSON object that has a `version` field. With literal types you can define different types discriminated by what string value features in it's `version` field, and based on that alone you can implement fully type-safe code paths.

                • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-2320:30

                  If you have some `ConstrainedNumber` type, you will need to cast between it and `number`, either with a type assertion or with a type guard. In either case, when you use bespoke types everywhere you kill code reuse.

              • By kennywinker 2025-11-236:242 reply

                Casting? Not really - i think you’d only need a couple type checks.

                Imo this is mostly useful for situations where you want to handle input validation (and errors) in the UI code and this function lives far away from ui code.

                Your point about clamping makes sense, and it’s probably worth doing that anyway, but without it being encoded in the type you have to communicate how the function is intended to be used some other way.

                • By skydhash 2025-11-2313:30

                  What about documentation as in docstring, function signature label and the like. I quite like CommonLisp, EmacsLisp, Go for that.

                • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-237:201 reply

                  How would you convert a Number type to a ClampedNumber type without casting?

                  • By kennywinker 2025-11-238:291 reply

                    Ah, yeah you’re right. I somehow thought typescript could do type narrowing based on checks - like say:

                    If (i >= 1) { // i’s type now includes >= 1 }

                    But that is not the case, so you’d need a single cast to make it work (from number to ClampedNumber<1,200>) or however exactly you’d want to express this.

                    Tbf having looked more closely into how typescript handles number range types, I don’t think I would ever use them. Not very expressive or clear. I think I hallucinated something closer to what is in this proposal: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/43505

                    I still think that the general idea of communicating what acceptable input is via the type system is a good one. But the specifics of doing that with numbers isn’t great in typescript yet.

                    • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-239:09

                      How would you implement it in other languages that support it better? Can you literally just do a range check and the compiler infers its range for types? If so thats actually pretty neat.

          • By epolanski 2025-11-2313:37

            Being guaranteed that _at runtime_ you won't end up with 1 or 201.

      • By IceDane 2025-11-2223:40

        Blub.

    • By samdoesnothing 2025-11-2222:151 reply

      I have mixed feelings about Typescript, I hate reading code with heavy TS annotations because JS formatters are designed to keep line widths short, so you end up with a confusing mess of line breaks. Pure JS is also just more readable.

      Also you can so easily go overboard with TS and design all sorts of crazy types and abstractions based on those types that become a net negative in your codebase.

      However it does feel really damn nice to have it catch errors and give you great autocomplete and refactoring tooling.

      • By locknitpicker 2025-11-2311:04

        > I have mixed feelings about Typescript, I hate reading code with heavy TS annotations because JS formatters are designed to keep line widths short, so you end up with a confusing mess of line breaks. Pure JS is also just more readable.

        That's not a TypeScript issue, it's a code quality issue and a skill issue. Anyone can put together an unintelligible mess in any language.

    • By dzonga 2025-11-230:332 reply

      typescript is largely a result of solving a non-existent problem. Yeah JS is finicky & has foot-guns, however they're ways around those foot guns that don't involve typescript.

      Rich Hickey in 10 Years of Clojure & Maybe Not then the Value of Values - lays this out - though not meant at typescript but static types in general.

      the thing most people don't have proper Javascript fundamentals.

      Function signatures: JSDoc works

      Most types - use Maps | Arrays

      if a value doesn't exist in a map we can ignore it. There's also the safe navigation operator.

      Instead of mutable objects - there's ways around this too. Negating types again.

      • By locknitpicker 2025-11-238:08

        > typescript is largely a result of solving a non-existent problem.

        Claiming that lack of static type checking is a non-existent problem is quite a bold claim. Care to offer some details to substantiate your claim?

      • By fenomas 2025-11-233:17

        Uh, among several other issues with this, what use are JSDoc comments for typing, without typescript to check them?

HackerNews