submitted 2 years ago by lorty@lemmy.ml to c/typescript@programming.dev

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have googled this and even got to the second page, and there does not seem to be any kind of consensus.

As far as I can tell, it's a bad idea because it creates code you don't see and accepts inputs that you wouldn't want. And yet, many people seem to like them more than, say, const unions due to being easier to refactor in bulk.

So what gives? Is this a case of IT people having very strong opinions on stuff that doesn't matter? Or is there a technical reason for or against it?

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Statick@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

At work, when I was helping with some frontend stuff, we used object literals.

const DIRECTIONS = {
  UP: "UP",
  DOWN: "DOWN"
} as const;

type DIRECTIONS = typeof DIRECTIONS[keyof typeof DIRECTIONS];

Taken from option 2 in this blog post. https://maxheiber.medium.com/alternatives-to-typescript-enums-50e4c16600b1`___`

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's what the typescript official docs recommend as an alternative too

https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/enums.html#objects-vs-enums

The const keyword was added after enums. I doubt enums would exist if the feature was added earlier.

[-] Fisherswamp@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

This is, in my opinion, the absolute best way to do it

[-] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago

Basically, you can use them if you want to, but every single case where you would use them would be better served with a union type.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Another good option is const objects, it's a recommended alternative in the official docs. https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/enums.html#objects-vs-enums

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023

2 points (100.0% liked)

TypeScript

1010 readers

6 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev