Types are the cheapest tests there are. Our platform and our plugins are written in TypeScript, and so is our client work, which is why a rename is a build error rather than a support ticket.
Not academic strictness. Fewer of the failures that reach a customer.
Undefined fields, wrong shapes and renamed properties fail at build time instead of at midnight.
The compiler finds every caller. Large changes become mechanical instead of a gamble.
Types tell the next developer what a function expects. That developer is often you.
Accurate autocomplete and jump-to-definition across the whole project, including our SDK.
The same types describe the server's response and the browser's expectation, so a renamed field breaks the build instead of a customer's screen. This is most of the value and it's invisible in a demo.
Forms, tables and filters where the shapes are long and nested. Types are what make a screen like that changeable a year later without a rewrite.
Validation, pricing and formatting written once and used by the site and the React Native app, with the compiler proving both still agree.
TypeScript compiles alongside untyped code, so we type the risky parts first — money, auth, data writes — rather than stopping everything for a conversion.
A published package whose types ARE its documentation, so the people using it get autocomplete rather than a README.
Written for someone deciding, not for someone who already knows. Skip it if you do.
JavaScript with a type checker on top. You write what a value is meant to be — a number, a customer, a list of orders — and the compiler tells you before you ship where the code disagrees with itself. It compiles to ordinary JavaScript, so the browser never sees TypeScript and there's no runtime cost.
Because the failures it removes are the expensive ones: an undefined field, a renamed property, a shape that changed on the server and not in the browser. Those don't fail loudly in JavaScript; they fail on one customer's screen at nine at night. In TypeScript they fail on a build machine before anyone sees them.
It pays off on the second change rather than the first. Typing costs a little at the start and repays it every time somebody refactors, hands over, or comes back after six months. For anything lasting longer than a few weeks it's faster overall, which is why we type everything we ship.
It doesn't check what happens at runtime. Data arriving from an API, a form or a database is unknown until something validates it, and a type alone won't do that. We validate at those boundaries and let types carry the certainty inwards.
If everyone works around the old code instead of changing it, the codebase has stopped being an asset. Types make the compiler find every caller, which turns a scary change into a mechanical one.
When the answer to “what does this function take?” is a person rather than a file, types are the cheapest documentation you'll ever write, and the only kind that can't go stale.
Undefined isn't a function, can't read property of null, a field that was renamed months ago. These are type errors that reached production because nothing checked.
It adds a little at the very start and saves more from the first refactor onwards. On anything lasting longer than a few weeks it's faster overall.
Yes, gradually. TypeScript runs alongside untyped JavaScript, so we type the risky parts first rather than stopping everything for a conversion.
It compiles to normal JavaScript, so the browser never sees TypeScript and there's no runtime cost.
Yes, gradually and without a freeze. The two compile together, so we type the parts where a mistake costs money first and leave the rest until it's touched anyway.
No. It disappears at build time. The browser downloads and runs plain JavaScript exactly as it would have.
A few lines are enough to start. You get a reply within two working days.
