[Betelgeuse90]

Honestly I used to think the same way about JS, because not having types allowed for very concise code sometimes. But the more I used Swift I realized how powerful type inference can be, and the difference in conciseness shrunk to basically nothing.

[diggan]

Heh, yeah, everyone's journey is different :) I started out being a big fan of static typing but eventually found that I'm usually hit by different issues than "this was a int but I expected a string" that were more important to be solved, so I'm mostly using dynamic languages nowadays.

But that's what so great with programming languages, there are so many that work so differently, so there is at least one language for everyone, no matter how different your brain works :)

By the way, if you're a fan of "conciseness" you should give a lisp-type languages a try if you haven't before, will show you a completely different level of conciseness! Clojure is a great introduction to lisps. And if you still need validation of data somehow, clojure.spec et al works great and will introduce you to some cool new things you probably haven't come across before :)

[knallfrosch]

Doesn't TypeScript – as mentioned above – solve all JavaScript type problems? I have, in 6 years, never encountered a single type error originating from a TS file.

[jwells89]

Biggest problems with TypeScript IMO are that it’s a layer rather than a language proper and that untyped JS problems can too easily worm their way in if you’re using any libraries at all. Also depending on the group of developers involved, the ease at which one can pull the escape hatch and opt out of TS is a liability and can render much of its benefit moot.