[flabbergast]

> it's actually dangerous for your project to NOT be written using TypeScript today.

Wow! Bye bye Javascript! Such arrogance! In a way it always feels like Typescript developers are way beyond all those poor suckers still coding in Python, Javascript, Ruby, Coffeescript, etc.. Dynamically typed languages are DANGEROUS!!! just as C is DANGEROUS!!! I'm so happy C is still being used and not abandoned in favor of C# or so.

I know I can be way more popular preaching Typescript nowadays, it would make me really cool, smart and up to date. Not going for Typescript proves I'm mediocre at best. This is not cynic, this is real when I talk to fellow web developers.

I believe static type checking should ideally be done by the IDE, we shouldn't need an entire new language for that with all its shortcomings, issues and whatsoever. And we'll see what's left when the hype is over and the next big thing in the Javascript world comes around. At least heaps of Typescript code bases that need to be rewritten.

[cheerlessbog]

> static type checking should ideally be done by the IDE, we shouldn't need an entire new language

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Javascript is barely typed, so presumably you do need a new language to perform type checking.

Unless you mean that your IDE should be able to infer types, which is unlikely because typing defines intent, and we've all read plenty of code where we can't figure out what the code author intended.

[smt88]

Your comment seems to be a result of ignorance of what TypeScript is and how it works.

The main point you're missing is that TypeScript is gradual. It's a superset of JavaScript, meaning that you can use TypeScript when you want it or ignore it when you don't want it.

Any valid JavaScript file is also a valid TypeScript file.

> Dynamically typed languages are DANGEROUS!!!

See above. TypeScript is dynamically typed by default. It just also has a static type checker that you can opt into.

A good practice in both JavaScript and TypeScript is to use "const" instead of "var" or "let" anyway.

> I believe static type checking should ideally be done by the IDE

JavaScript doesn't have enough explicit information for this to be possible. The IDE can do a lot, but it can't do nearly as much if the developer's intentions are implicit. In TypeScript, the developer has the option (again, not the requirement) to make her intentions explicit.

> we shouldn't need an entire new language for that with all its shortcomings

Again, see above. TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript, not an entirely new language.

> At least heaps of Typescript code bases that need to be rewritten.

No, they won't. TypeScript compilers will still be available, even if they're not actively developed. They produce JavaScript, so worst-case scenario, you'll just have a JavaScript code base.