Semantic UI vs TypeScript: What are the differences?
Semantic UI and TypeScript are primarily classified as "Front-End Frameworks" and "Templating Languages & Extensions" tools respectively.
Semantic UI and TypeScript are both open source tools. It seems that TypeScript with 50.5K GitHub stars and 6.98K forks on GitHub has more adoption than Semantic UI with 45.7K GitHub stars and 4.83K GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, TypeScript has a broader approval, being mentioned in 954 company stacks & 1390 developers stacks; compared to Semantic UI, which is listed in 77 company stacks and 50 developer stacks.
What is Semantic UI?
What is TypeScript?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Semantic UI?
What are the cons of using TypeScript?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Choosing to add TypeScript has given us one more layer to rely on to help enforce code quality, good standards, and best practices within our engineering organization. One of the biggest benefits for us as an engineering team has been how well our IDEs and editors (e.g., Visual Studio Code ) integrate with and understand TypeScript . This allows developers to catch many more errors at development time instead of relying on run time. The end result is safer (from a type perspective) code and a more efficient coding experience that helps to catch and remove errors with less developer effort.
ReactQL is written in TypeScript to provide full types/Intellisense, and pick up hard-to-diagnose goofs that might later show up at runtime. React makes heavy use of Webpack 4 to handle transforming your code to an optimised client-side bundle, and in throws back just enough code needed for the initial render, while seamlessly handling
import statements asynchronously as needed, making the payload your user downloads ultimately much smaller than trying to do it by hand.
React Helmet was chosen to handle
<head> content, because it works universally, making it easy to throw back the correct
<title> and other tags on the initial render, as well as inject new tags for subsequent client-side views.
<style> tags when using #StyledComponents.
React Router handles routing, because it works both on the server and in the client. ReactQL customises it further by capturing non-200 responses on the server, redirecting or throwing back custom 404 pages as needed.
Koa is the web server that handles all incoming HTTP requests, because it's fast (TTFB < 5ms, even after fully rendering React), and its natively #async, making it easy to async/await inside routes and middleware.
I use TypeScript for Web Applications and for both frontend and backend because it has a lot of tooling around it and they really got the types and type safety right. Flow (JS) on the other hand lacks tooling and most of the times I scramble to find the right way of building my contracts in which TypeScript is very intuitive and natural. Additionally TypeScript is very similar to Java so your backend engineers and full stack engineers can work with it without much of context switch.
The only time I think Flow shines is (based on probably my outdated knowledge) Flow is/was the only option if you want/wanted to build a React Native application mainly because React Native transpiler at the time I was working with it would only work with flow.
I use TypeScript because the tooling is more mature (the decision to discontinue TSLint in favor of moving all its checks to ESLint is a thoughtful and mature decision), there's a ton of examples and tutorials for it, and it just generally seems to be where the industry is headed. Flow (JS) is a fine tool, but it just hasn't seen the uptake that TS has, and as a result is lacking a lot of the nicer small things, like thorough Visual Studio Code integration, offered by TS.
We currently use TypeScript at work. Previously we used Flow (JS) but it was sometimes really difficult to make the types work the way you want. Especially non-trivial types were problematic. And the IDE support wasn't good, Flow took too much resources and sometimes remain stuck and do not show errors (I use Visual Studio Code). With TypeScript we almost do not have these problems. IDE support is superb, working with types is much easier and typing system seems more mature and powerful. There are some downsides (like partion inheritance etc.), but TS team is still pushing it forward. So for me TypeScript is clear winner.
I use TypeScript because it's adoption by many developers, it's supported by many companies, and it's growth. AngularJS, React, @ASP.NET Core. I started using it in .NET Core, then for a job. Later I added more Angular experience and wrote more React software. It makes your code easier to understand and read... which means it makes other people's code easier to understand and read.
I use TypeScript because:
- incredible developer tooling and community support
- actively developed and supported by Microsoft (yes, I like Microsoft) ;)
- easier to make sense of a TS codebase because the annotations provide so much more context than plain JS
- refactors become easier (VSCode has superb support for TS)
I've switched back and forth between TS and Flow and decided a year ago to abandon Flow completely in favor of TS. I don't want to bash Flow, however, my main grievances are very poor tooling (editor integration leaves much to be desired), a slower release cycle, and subpar docs and community support.
I think our #Frontend stack is pretty standard – but we have taken some deviations from a typical modern stack:
Yarn instead of npm. When yarn debuted, we never looked back. Now npm has pretty much caught up with speed and lockfiles, but yarn gives me confidence that my dependency installs are deterministic. Really interested in the plug-n-play (PnP) feature that removes the need for a node_modules folder, but haven't implemented this yet.
Typescript has been a win because, in general, it makes codebase maintenance less brittle. It's significantly easier to refactor in TS than JS, which encourages incremental improvements, file re-organizing, etc. Our developers are happier with the overall development experience.
The downside is that TS sometimes exacerbates problems caused by Node's fragmented ecosystem. Sometimes @types/
If your project is big enough, I'd say TS is nearly always worth it, but it can make selecting libraries a pain.
Used for Node.js personal projects that I think will have a longer lifetime than others, or that are combined with a web front end component like Angular (to share types).
Generally a poor developer experience. Usage decreasing recently compared to other preferred programming languages/platforms.
TypeScript is used in Kuro (https://github.com/Marc3842h/kuro).
Excellent design-time type checking and the ability for the Typescript compiler to attach typing information to metadata at compile time allows for relatively simple type checking at run-time as well.
We, our team can sleep comfortable at night know "x is undefined" will not occur in production. It's also really helpful as IDE help in code completion when they know types.
We use Semantic UI for our frotend. A heavily customised version of it, but still Semantic UI under the hood.
Used Semantic UI + Angular2 together with Spring or Node/Express for full stack web application development.