[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.