Comment by wk_end 4 hours ago
If I saw that in a PR I would push very hard to reject; something like that is a maintenance burden that probably isn’t worth the cost, and I’ve been the most hardcore about types and TypeScript of anyone of any team I’ve been on in the past decade or so.
Now, that said, I probably would want to be friends with that dev. Unless they had an AI generate it, in which case the sin is doubled.
If it's correct, it's not a maintenance nightmare, and it will alert you to problems later when someone wants to use it incorrectly.
If you're writing first-party software, it probably doesn't matter. But if you have consumers, it's important. The compiler will tell you what's wrong all downstream from there unless someone explicitly works around it. That's the one you want to reject.
To answer this we probably need more details, otherwise it's gonna be an XY Problem. What is it that I'm trying to do? How would I type this function in, say, SML, which isn't going to allow incorrect types but also doesn't allow these kinds of type gymnastics?
We don't have to deal in hypotheticals - we have a concrete example here. There's a method, array.flat() that does a thing that we can correctly describe in TypeScript's type system.
You say you would reject those correct types, but for what alternative?
It's hugely beneficial to library users to automatically get correctly type return values from functions without having to do error-prone casts. I would always take on the burden of correct types on the library side to improve the dev experience and reduce the risk of bugs on the library-consumption side.
There's nothing I can do about the standard JavaScript library, but in terms of code I have influence over, I very simply would not write a difficult-to-type method like Array.prototype.flat(), if I could help it. That's what I mean by an XY Problem - why are we writing this difficult-to-type method in the first place and what can we do instead?
Let's suppose Array.prototype.flat() wasn't in the standard library, which is why I'm reviewing a PR with this gnarly type in it. If I went and asked you why you needed this, I guess you'd say the answer is: "because JavaScript lets me make heterogenous arrays, which lets me freely intermix elements and arrays and arrays of arrays and... in my arrays, and I'm doing that for something tree-like but also need to get an array of each element in the structure". To which I'd say something like "stop doing that, this isn't Lisp, define an actual data type for these things". Suddenly this typing problem goes away, because the type of your "flatten" method is just "MyStructure -> [MyElements]".
I think there’s a difference between what’s expected/acceptable for library code vs application code. Types like this might be hard to understand, but they create very pleasant APIs for library consumers. I’ve generally found it very rare that I’ve felt the need to reach for more complex types like this in application code, however.
RXJS’s pipe function has a pretty complex type for its signature, but as a user of the library it ‘just works’ in exactly the type-safe way I’d expect, without me having to understand the complexity of the type.