There's a test for that
We can debate the feasibility of writing tests that obviate the need for static typing. But if you buy the argument that type safety becomes important at large scale, TypeScript invites you to consider how you want to invest your testing effort.
Tests are, after all, another kind of overhead: more code to write and maintain. Arguably what can be tested mechanically should be. If computers can figure out whether two software objects are compatible, humans ought to delegate that job to them. Writing tests, like writing the software those tests exercise, is a creative act that should require and benefit from human intelligence. Automatic type checking is, from this point of view, a way to free up human creativity for higher purposes.
One of those higher purposes is effective naming. "There are only two hard things in computer science," it's famously said, "cache invalidation and naming things." The names of variables, functions, classes, and modules are the most fundamental kind of documentation.
ECMAScript 6 takes a major step forward. It provides a standard way to organize programs, which may spread across many files, as sets of modules. That mechanism, which TypeScript adopts, is a boon for large-scale development. When module dependencies are declared in a standard way, programmers can more readily understand those dependencies, tools can automate that understanding, and code refactoring becomes less risky.
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.