Hacker News Reader

Comment by annnnd | Hacker News Reader

Agree with you 100%.

One could use this system for asserts though:

    assert(type.isObject({})));
    assert(type.isNumber(NaN)); // fails
    assert(type.isElement(document.createElement('div')));
    assert(type.isRegExp(/abc/);

This could increase readability (because it documents the data type expectations) and would also break on some errors as soon as possible.

View on HN

It's still a lot of code being run without real benefit. Use Typescript if you really want static types, write sufficient unit tests either way, and you don't need this.

Static types and unit tests don't solve or catch all problems. I'm thinking about event-driven messaging systems, which is pretty common in js; Static typing will not be of any help in that situation.

You can use a different observer pattern sometimes that can be caught by static typing, like Signals

Sufficiently advanced type systems can enforce an enormous range of constraints. You can for example create a type for trees enforcing that the tree must be balanced; code that would unbalance a tree will just not compile.

Sure - and you can test types in your unit tests using the OP's technique. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com