26 replies

1. Zach Leatherman 2 min later

   make it work
   make it ~~right~~ the same
   make it ~~fast~~ slower

   1. Simeon.__proto__ 45 min later

      @zachleat Slower?

      1. Zach Leatherman 50 min later

         @dotproto overhead is overhead 😬

         1. Simeon.__proto__ 51 min later

            @zachleat Sorry, do you mean runtime overhead or dev time? Either one is not ideal, just not quite following

            1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

               @dotproto A weak case can be made for the former—I’ve added some more JS to make TS happy. A strong case can be made for the latter 😅

   2. Old Man Vandehey (HAS MOVED) 4 hr later

      @zachleat That's my favorite Daft Punk song

      1. Private reply 19 hr later
2. Lou Cyx 3 min later

   @zachleat Is it open-source? I might be able to help. I've been doing TS for almost 12 years, so maybe I can help you find a way to keep your JS code and still use TS ^_^

   1. Zach Leatherman 5 min later

      @loucyx I may take you up on that if I get too far gone! For now I’m venting 😅

   2. Paul Everitt 16 min later

      @loucyx @zachleat I've been interested in getting some TS eyeballs on stuff to publish, like a plugin. Interested in jumping in?

      1. Lou Cyx 43 min later

         @pauleveritt @zachleat Sure, if it's an open-source thing, I don't mind taking a look. I don't take responsibility in my reaction if I spot `any`s in said code 🤣

3. Paul Everitt 10 min later

   @zachleat FTR, I hit that this week trying to get `new Eleventy()` and `eleventy.config.*s` working in Vitest. Some of your code really wants `.js` as suffix. But more likely...it's my stack.

   1. Zach Leatherman 12 min later

      @pauleveritt I’m refactoring Eleventy.js and the Configuration API right now to work better with TypeScript, fwiw

      1. Paul Everitt 15 min later

         @zachleat Lovely. I am really, really excited about the possibility and documenting it. I just worry the issue is one-step-too-obscure.

         If I made a tiny reproducible repo, would that be good or bad? (Bad because I'm making you look at something.)

         1. Zach Leatherman 16 min later

            @pauleveritt Happy to have a look!

            1. Paul Everitt 7 hr later

               @zachleat Here's a repo. If you'd like, I can make a quick video walkthrough if that's more efficient. https://github.com/pauleveritt/eleventy-test-config

4. Private reply 2 hr later
   1. Private reply 2 hr later
   2. Private reply 2 hr later
   3. Private reply 2 hr later
5. Braw ☕🏳️‍🌈 2 hr later

   @zachleat to be honest, doing this opened a new perspective of how much overcomplicated stuff JS allows you to do without thinking, which is not a great thing... regular solutions are usually covered by TS, and in other cases you can always use an escape hatch of ts-expect-error or type casting...

   1. Zach Leatherman 3 hr later

      @brawaru I get it but it’s failing on pretty basic JS patterns so far. If I change the Array type to object, it passes without error.

      1. Braw ☕🏳️‍🌈 3 hr later

         @zachleat is this VS Code? I noticed a completely different error in TypeScript playground, which I also spotted on the screenie: you forgot the generic type parameter for Array. Seems to work for me like this: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?filetype=js#code/MYGwhgzhAEAqCmEAu0DeBYAUASGAewDtkAnAV2CT2IAoBKNLbbJACwEsIA6YxeJOgNyMAvlkY8IfOgxzYA9ACoF0AAJIAngAd4aAILFiYdQB5U0AmAC28AFzQSbAgHNowgHzDoCuY2bsumiCkTo4wALzQANoAukI4ophY0MnQigpJKV6qmmCGlmgOzp4W1hkp3oxgACZVAApBIQTUJfD0GLI8SKTEBNCsHJyBwaGDpBAs1GYtrrRx2AkJWPAAHppUKGYIyK4CQA

         1. Zach Leatherman 4 hr later

            @brawaru Using TypeScript v5.5.4 in VS Code yeah.

            1. Braw ☕🏳️‍🌈 19 hr later

               @zachleat oh I see the the error locally, exactly what I suspected: TypeScript cannot really do magic of analysing the code flow deeply so it sees that `this.plugins` is not initialised in the constructor, but that you also define `this.plugins` in other place, so it consider it potentially `undefined`. You can simply initialise `plugins` at the top of the class to tell TS ‘trust me bro, it's there and it's never `undefined`’ (even though if forget to call `reset` in constructor, it will be 💀)

               1. Zach Leatherman 22 hr later

                  @brawaru yeah, that’s basically the approach I ended up with. This style of unnecessary code modification is what I’m now referring to as TypeScript slop 😅