TypeScript
Types as the contract between every layer — and the reason AI-generated code is safe to keep.
Every new codebase we start is TypeScript in strict mode, with no implicit any and no unchecked escape hatches without a comment explaining why. This is not preference; it is what allows a small team to move quickly through a large codebase without breaking things silently.
The value compounds in three specific places. Refactoring becomes safe, because a rename or a signature change surfaces every affected call site at compile time rather than in production. Onboarding accelerates, because types are documentation that cannot go stale. And AI-generated code becomes reviewable, because a confidently wrong assumption about a data shape fails at build rather than at runtime.
That last point matters more every quarter. When a substantial share of first-draft code is machine-written, the type system is the first line of review — it catches the invented API signature and the mishandled null before a human reads a line.
Where it fits
What TypeScript genuinely gives us
Refactoring without fear
A change to a shared type produces a list of every place that must change, instead of a surprise three weeks later.
Documentation that cannot rot
A function signature describes exactly what it accepts and returns, and the compiler enforces the description.
Safety at every boundary
Schema validation at API and form boundaries turns untrusted input into typed data with runtime guarantees.
A review gate for generated code
Strict typing catches a large class of AI-written mistakes before any human review begins.
End-to-end type safety, database to interface
The pattern we use on most builds: the database schema generates types through Prisma or Drizzle, API contracts are described with Zod schemas that produce both runtime validation and static types, and the front end consumes those same types. A column rename in the database surfaces as a compile error in the component that displayed it.
The point is not elegance. It is that the class of bug where the API changed and the front end did not simply stops occurring, and that class is a meaningful share of production incidents in untyped stacks.
Strictness settings that actually matter
Strict mode on, no implicit any, no unchecked indexed access where the codebase can bear it, and exhaustive switch checking through never. The last one is quietly the most valuable: when a new variant is added to a union, every switch that fails to handle it becomes a compile error rather than a silent fallthrough.
How TypeScript projects usually go wrong
These are the failure modes we look for first when we are called in to rescue somebody else's implementation.
TypeScript questions we get asked
Including where we would recommend something other than TypeScript. Call +91 70033 91355 and you will get the same answer from an engineer.
For the first fortnight on a new team, slightly. After that it is consistently faster, because the time saved on debugging, refactoring and onboarding exceeds the time spent writing annotations. On projects where a substantial share of first-draft code is AI-generated the gap widens sharply, because the compiler does review work a human would otherwise do line by line.
Yes, incrementally. TypeScript is designed for gradual adoption — enable it with loose settings, convert file by file starting with shared utilities and data models, and tighten the compiler settings as coverage grows. A meaningful codebase typically reaches full strict coverage in two to four months without pausing feature work.
Services built on TypeScript
Technologies we pair it with
Tell us what is slowing your business down.
A 30-minute call with a senior engineer — not a salesperson. You leave with an architecture sketch and an honest cost range, whether or not you hire us.
Direct line
+91 70033 91355Mon–Sat · 9:30 AM – 7:30 PM IST · Sealdah, Kolkata