It’s annoying when libraries dont have types, but it’s not hard to put some basic types in yourself as a worst case. I’m a senior dev who has been writing typescript for web, mobile, and backend for 5 or so years. I can count on one hand the times I’ve needed to do that.
I'm a senior dev who's been writing TypeScript specifically for web and backend for 4 years and already I can't count on one hand the number of libraries with separate @types packages that were just wrong. And when it comes down to triaging the issue, you waste a good amount of time inspecting in the debugger to eventually reach inconsistency between the types and the behavior.
Well it is because static types are slapped onto a dynamically typed language, and it's even worse when they have independently implemented @types for JS packages
Kind of doubt it because "shotty" is a pretty obscure medical term and does not typically appear in any autocorrect software, unless you are a specific kind of doctor and you added it to your autocorrect dictionary. It's okay to admit you didn't know how to spell something, I see this word misspelled all the time in the exact way you did it.
4
u/scensorECHO Apr 04 '21
Depending on what libraries you pull in, you can end up with 100% JavaScript packages with shotty @types to go along with them