[hnarn]

Can you elaborate on why TS would be "less accessible"? It was my impression (not a js dev) that TS is pretty close to JS in syntax, just with some additional sugar to ensure types and what not -- meaning that someone that knows JS shouldn't have a problem understanding what's written, and should need only a small amount of effort to contribute.

[douchescript]

It’s javascript in the end so why complicate it more? Less people know typescript, making source less accessible, i.e you first need to understand typescript to understand the code. Also you’ll have several more layers of indirection: compiling, transpiling, bigger toolchain. In the end - why should not the latest javascript be enough?

In the old times javascript was apparently not good enough without jquery - but why add another dependency of similar ilk now that jquery is removed?

I am averse to complicated javascript franken toolchains because they don’t age well. Better to stay vanilla.

[hnarn]

I don't mean to question your abilities here, especially since I don't write JS myself, but I don't recognize your view of TypeScript.

> why should not the latest javascript be enough?

The fact that TypeScript exists in the first place and is extremely widely used by large organizations would seem to indicate that the latest javascript is not "enough".

> In the old times javascript was apparently not good enough without jquery - but why add another dependency of similar ilk now that jquery is removed?

Again, I'm not a JS dev, but it seems very dubious to equalize jQuery with TypeScript. They have completely different objectives and achieve completely different things.

> I am averse to complicated javascript franken toolchains because they don’t age well. Better to stay vanilla.

I can understand and appreciate the sentiment, but since most people seem to agree that the lack of static typing in JavaScript is something that can introduce bugs and unexpected behavior, and the user base of TS is quite large (made by MS, used by many large organizations[1]), I would agree with what most users of it probably would say, that the trade-off is by far worth it.

[1]: https://stackshare.io/typescript

[douchescript]

I have used typescript for production but i am not convinced it adds to the experience. If you are not a js dev, why do you worry about typescript? It seems like you are in the static type camp and want to make a case for that. In the end the runtime is not typechecked anyway so it’s a false security.

Jquery was written to overcome limitations in js browsers as typescript was written to overcome the typing limitation.

It seems again you like the typed lanuage political agenda. I am on the other side - i like dynamic languages. I appreciate that there is another side - i just don’t agree.

There are lots of programming languages and tools that are in wide use by large organizations. That doesn’t make them better or worse.

It just comes down to politics, and I want to make a case for the dynamic camp.

Remember coffeescript? Just a waste of time and effort.