[krapp]

Using a language that compiles to javascript is still using javascript, though.

I think what the author meant to say is "you can pretend you're not writing javascript, even though you really are."

But once you compile that better, safer, saner language into the untyped, dynamic, poorly designed mess that is javascript, and run it in the volatile environment of a browser, it's still javascript running in a browser.

[horrido]

That's like saying if you compile C++ to Intel x86 assembler, you're still programming in assembler. JavaScript is the "assembly language" of the web; compiling (transpiling) to it is not directly programming in it.

Now, you're half-right in that you may occasionally need to drop into JavaScript to do some "low level" things. This is no different from C++, where you may occasionally need to drop into x86 assembler to do some low level things, such as local speed optimization, or hitting memory-mapped registers.

In both cases, you're programming at a higher level using safer and more sophisticated abstractions.

[krapp]

It's similar, but not the same. Moving from C++ to assembler is dropping from a high level of abstraction to a low level of abstraction. Moving from, say, Python to Javascript is just switching one high level language for another - there is no "lower level." You could just as well save the trouble of the second language and run a type checker or linter on javascript code itself and wind up with the same degree of "safety", such as it is.

[horrido]

As you pointed out yourself, JavaScript is a poorly designed mess. It may be a "high level" language, but it's also dangerous to use. None of the linters do a perfect job of ferreting out all the problems. In other words, JavaScript will never be 100 per cent "safe" to use. Treating it as a lower level of abstraction doesn't harm us. It simply gives us a foundation for using better languages, and that has to be a Good Thing.