The author seems a bit conflicted on whether he likes or dislikes types.
First, to say that "Types are not nearly as critical to front end development as some will have you believe" misses the point of types. Every programming language has types, even dynamically typed languages. As a programmer, embracing that types underly the code's meaning affords much more power to write clean, correct, and elegant code. This argument stands regardless of the type of programming; types underly code.
On the other hand, there's his remark, "TypeScript tries too hard to make JavaScript like C# or Java." (You claim that this is an unfair complaint against TypeScript. Would you care to elaborate what you think TypeScript's purpose is?) Personally, I feel similarly when working in TypeScript. Sure, the compiler can catch a few things, and it's certainly a step above only runtime type checks, but the type system itself is fundamentally flawed.
The type systems of Java and TypeScript are actually quite similar, so I'm going to refer to them both here. Neither language has a really good idea of what a sum or union type looks like. Consider doing math, but you can only multiply. Sure, it's possible to hack around some things so that you get the same results, you're doing a huge song-and-dance just to say that what you really want is this plus that.
Type systems like those present in Java or TypeScript (or, as it turns out, most mainstream languages) that lack unions end up leaving this weird aftertaste.
So my takeaway here is that we can do better. Certainly writing Java or TypeScript eliminates classes of bugs that Python or JavaScript are susceptible to, but let's keep pushing. We owe it to ourselves to strive for much better more expressivity in our type systems.
I'll use TypeScript over JavaScript for now, but I'm always keeping an eye out for technologies that raise the bar.
First, to say that "Types are not nearly as critical to front end development as some will have you believe" misses the point of types. Every programming language has types, even dynamically typed languages. As a programmer, embracing that types underly the code's meaning affords much more power to write clean, correct, and elegant code. This argument stands regardless of the type of programming; types underly code.
On the other hand, there's his remark, "TypeScript tries too hard to make JavaScript like C# or Java." (You claim that this is an unfair complaint against TypeScript. Would you care to elaborate what you think TypeScript's purpose is?) Personally, I feel similarly when working in TypeScript. Sure, the compiler can catch a few things, and it's certainly a step above only runtime type checks, but the type system itself is fundamentally flawed.
The type systems of Java and TypeScript are actually quite similar, so I'm going to refer to them both here. Neither language has a really good idea of what a sum or union type looks like. Consider doing math, but you can only multiply. Sure, it's possible to hack around some things so that you get the same results, you're doing a huge song-and-dance just to say that what you really want is this plus that.
Type systems like those present in Java or TypeScript (or, as it turns out, most mainstream languages) that lack unions end up leaving this weird aftertaste.
So my takeaway here is that we can do better. Certainly writing Java or TypeScript eliminates classes of bugs that Python or JavaScript are susceptible to, but let's keep pushing. We owe it to ourselves to strive for much better more expressivity in our type systems.
I'll use TypeScript over JavaScript for now, but I'm always keeping an eye out for technologies that raise the bar.