[throw_m239339]

> For better or for worse, features of TypeScript that generate code (like enums) are generally considered a mistake.

Considered a mistake by whom? they are valid Typescript.

It's just creating yet another flavor of Typescript... and why straight out adopt that type syntax? Because it will please Typescript developers and Microsoft?

All for what? being able to run that flavor of typescript without having to compile typescript files into Javascript? It would change nothing to the already complex build pipelines JS developers are already mandated to use for production.

I agree with the parent, this is a bad proposal.

What Typescript should do as an alternative is better support for JSDoc type analysis. I don't use typescript language, however I do use typescript compiler.

https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/jsdoc-supported...

Does it defeat the purpose of typescript? No, typescript is both a language AND a JavaScript static type analyzer.

[neurotrace]

> Considered a mistake by whom?

The developers of TypeScript. TypeScript aims to avoid adding anything to the runtime as a result of the type system[1].

> It would change nothing to the already complex build pipelines JS developers are already mandated to use for production.

You're right, it wouldn't change anything when you're building for production if you're doing things right. It would mean that you don't have to repeatedly compile your code while you're developing it though.

> What Typescript should do as an alternative is better support for JSDoc type analysis.

If you read the proposal you'll see they explain why expanding JSDoc is not ideal. Personally, I wrote a lot of JSDoc back before TypeScript and now I don't want to touch the stuff. TS is much more ergonomic and expressive.

[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Desi...