sorry but i feel like this is backwards. the error - incorrectly assuming an `any` will be a `Thing` - is in `getThing`, and that's where the error message should be. getting an error in code that calls `getThing` instead would just obscure the real issue.
also, i think "avoid typing functions [...] and let their return types be implied" is terrible advice. argument and return types are the thing you should type explicitly, because it makes the errors local. otherwise you'll get all the fun of tracking down where that `null has no property "blah"` error came from, just at compile time
[not defending patent trolls, just poking what seems to be a hole in the concept]
> Its okay if they are actually still in the process of building the thing
what should happen with a patent holder who sells off their R&D department, and thus stops "developing things"? should they be allowed to keep their patents? (to keep receiving e.g. licencing fees for the stuff they did develop; i think that's how it works?)
also, i think "avoid typing functions [...] and let their return types be implied" is terrible advice. argument and return types are the thing you should type explicitly, because it makes the errors local. otherwise you'll get all the fun of tracking down where that `null has no property "blah"` error came from, just at compile time