TypeScript

Over the years of working with TypeScript, I've found myself avoiding one particular feature—not because it's broken or doesn't work, but because it just feels wrong in modern, maintainable JavaScript codebases. That feature is enum. Now don’t get me wrong: TypeScript enums

In every codebase, there are situations that should just never happen. Maybe it's a value that should have been validated earlier, or a branch in your logic that you’re 100% sure will never be executed. And yet… bugs happen. Instead of scattering throw new Error(...) statements throughout

As our TypeScript codebases grow, clarity and consistency become more important than clever tricks. One underrated but impactful practice is how we define return types—or more accurately, when we should and when we shouldn't. This article walks through my current recommendation (yes, it's changed a

TypeScript is powerful for enforcing type safety, and one of its most useful features is the ability to express immutability through the readonly modifier. However, there are times when we want to reverse that behavior — making a type's properties mutable again. That's where the Mutable<

In TypeScript, immutability is a great feature that protects your data structures from unwanted changes. By using readonly properties, you can ensure that once an object is created, its shape or values can’t be modified accidentally. But sometimes, you do need to mutate the data — especially in scenarios like

When working with TypeScript, you might have seen advice like "let the types be inferred instead of manually defining them." If you are wondering what this means and why many developers recommend it, this article will help you understand the concept, benefits, and some practical considerations you might