In general it seems hard to be in-between dynamic typing and static typing (compiling). As the article implies, one typically has to do more testing if dynamicness can allow "bad data" in.
The trade-off for dynamicness is more productivity and (potentially) easier-to-read code because less code is needed on average to express an idea since type-related code isn't needed as often. But if TypeScript is not type-safe enough to reduce the need for fine-grained testing, then you get the worse of both worlds: the verbosity of types and the busy-work of micro-testing.
That being said, I wish JavaScript would add a feature to allow optional parameter checking such as:
function foo(a:intReq, b:datetime, c:datetimeReq, d) {...}
Here, the "Req" ("required") suffix means the field can't be null or white-space. Parameter "d" has no type indicator. It's still "soft" type checking, but would catch a lot of problems earlier.
The trade-off for dynamicness is more productivity and (potentially) easier-to-read code because less code is needed on average to express an idea since type-related code isn't needed as often. But if TypeScript is not type-safe enough to reduce the need for fine-grained testing, then you get the worse of both worlds: the verbosity of types and the busy-work of micro-testing.
That being said, I wish JavaScript would add a feature to allow optional parameter checking such as:
function foo(a:intReq, b:datetime, c:datetimeReq, d) {...}
Here, the "Req" ("required") suffix means the field can't be null or white-space. Parameter "d" has no type indicator. It's still "soft" type checking, but would catch a lot of problems earlier.